Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SUPREME COURT: PRIZE, &c. DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1939–50

Account ordered:
of the Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the period from 3rd September, 1939, to 31st March, 1950, with a Copy of a Letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—[Mr. Jay.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTE LAW COMMITTEE

Mr. Keeling: asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement about the work of the Statute Law Committee since the last statement was made on 31st October, 1949.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have been asked to reply. The statement asked for in the Question is necessarily rather long, and, with the permission of the hon. Member, I propose to have the answer circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

1. As explained in the previous statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 31st October, 1949, the tasks set before the Statute Law Committee in 1947 fall under two main headings:

(a) that of consolidating scattered enactments, so that the statute law may more easily be found and understood; and
(b) that of reducing the bulk of the published volumes of the statutes and Statutory Instruments and keeping up to date the necessary indexes to them, and of providing means whereby they may readily be noted up annually.

2. The consolidation Bills presented in the 1948–49 Session have all duly received the Royal Assent. They related to civil aviation, marriage, taxation of vehicles, patents, registered designs, agricultural wages in Scotland, agricultural holdings in Scotland, air corporations and elections.

3. During the 1950 Session ten consolidation Bills were passed relating respectively to the immunities and privileges of international organisations, matrimonial causes, adoption of children, arbitration, shops, the Army Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, milk, dairies and artificial cream, diseases of animals, and the housing law in Scotland.

The Matrimonial Causes Act has now been separated from the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, which is a useful step towards a better arrangement of the Statute Book.

With two of the Bills of the 1950 Session, the Adoption Bill and the Matrimonial Causes Bill, use was made of the procedure allowed by the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949 (which provides machinery for making minor corrections and improvements solely required for consolidation). Experience has shown the advantages of the new procedure.

4. Work is still proceeding on the three exceptionally large undertakings mentioned in the statement made in 1949—the consolidation of the law relating to Income Tax, to Customs and Excise and to the work of magistrates' courts. Good progress is being made with all three.

The Bills relating to Customs and Excise and to magistrates' courts will not be pure consolidation Bills, for it is expected that some changes must he made in the law which are too structural in character and extensive in range to he dealt with under the new consolidation procedure. In their case, therefore, it will he necessary to adopt the method which proved satisfactory in the case of the Local Government Act, 1933, the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Bills are being prepared which, though they do not purport to reproduce exactly the existing law, do represent the substance of it as it works in practice. Each Bill will be submitted to a departmental committee comprised of persons expert in the subject to which it relates. When that method is adopted the Bill when introduced cannot, of course, be passed as a consolidation Bill; but in the past where the Departmental committee has been satisfied that a Bill contains no important or controversial changes it has subsequently proved acceptable to Parliament.

5. Thus, as regards consolidation, the present position is that 25 consolidation Acts have been passed since the Lord Chancellor announced his proposals for statute law reform in July, 1947. These 25 Acts take the place of over 90 Acts repealed by them ranging in date from 1540 to 1950. In addition to this there have been gathered into these 25 consolidation Acts numerous scattered provisions which have been eliminated from about 150 other existing Acts.

6. With regard to the second part of the task entrusted to the Statute Law Committee, the position is as follows. A second Statute Law Revision Bill was passed in May, 1950, and the Third Edition of Statutes Revised (containing all the living Public General Acts from the beginning of Parliament to the end of 1948, and all the Church Assembly Measures then in force) was published this year. As the


House is aware, the Statute Law Committee thought it very important to publish all the volumes of this work simultaneously so as to secure a clean start with a complete revised Statute Book which could be kept noted up until the time comes for a new edition. Simultaneous publication of all the volumes of an edition had never before been attempted and it is satisfactory that such a difficult task has been successfully accomplished. Congratulations are due to the Editor, Sir Robert Drayton, on having completed this great undertaking before leaving to take up another appointment. This edition, and all annual volumes since 1948, can be kept noted up without skilled assistance by means of the simple directions for noting which are being published annually under the title "Annotations to Acts."

7. Owing to the unforeseen delay in the publication of the Third Edition of the Statutes Revised the publication of the Chronological Table of the Statutes, which was to have contained the Acts to the end of 1948, and been a companion volume to that edition, was held back. Advantage, however, has been taken of the delay to incorporate in the new edition the enactments passed in the meanwhile so that when it is published next month the Chronological Table will include all the statutes down to the end of 1950.

8. It was intended that the new edition of the Index to the Statutes in Force should also he published as a companion volume to the Statutes Revised, but as the current edition of the Index included no Acts later than 1945 it was felt that publication of a new Index could no longer be delayed, and a new edition was published in December, 1950. It was, however, impracticable to include in that edition Acts later than 1948 and, therefore, a further edition including all Acts to the end of 1950 is in preparation and is expected to be ready for publication during this year.

9. The new (Third) Edition of Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised (the first since 1904) is in process of publication. Eight volumes have been published and another eleven are in the hands of the printers. It is expected that this work will be completed in about 28 volumes by the end of 1951. An inexpensive cumulative publication to enable the Third Edition of Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised to be kept up to date is being prepared under instructions from the Committee.

10. A new edition of the Index to the Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory Instruments in Force was published in December, 1950, covering the period down to the end of 1949.

11. A new edition of the consolidated Index to the Local Acts (the first since 1900) covering the period 1801 to 1947 was published in November, 1949, and work has begun on the preparation of a further edition.

12. Thus, of the three large enterprises mentioned in the statement made in 1949, the new edition of Statutes Revised and the new edition of the Consolidated Index to the Local Acts have been completed. The new edition of Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory

Instruments Revised is up to time and is well on its way to completion. With respect to the other publications for which the Committee is responsible, all arrears have now been caught up and some new publications have been undertaken.

The Statutory Publications Office has been so re-organised as to prevent the accumulation of arrears in future. Statute law revision and the preparation of future revised editions, both of the statutes and of statutory rules and orders and Statutory Instruments, is now being carried out on a day to day basis, so that when the time is ripe for new editions they can be produced at short notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Polish Geese

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Food what profit or loss his Department made on imported Polish geese and what was the cost of cold storing these geese since they were purchased.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): The loss made under the last contract made in May, 1949, was £119,594. This included about £25,600 cold storage charges, and the payment of £86,016 import duty to the Exchequer.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister appreciate that many people find Polish geese inedible and that they do not like their geese stored for one year, as they are in this case?

Mr. Webb: Opinions seem to vary. I have heard quite different accounts of the quality of the geese.

Eggs

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food (1) what changes he proposes to make in the arrangements for distribution of home produced eggs in the United Kingdom;
(2) what plans he has in hand for improving the quality and freshness of shell eggs available for sale in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Webb: I am satisfied that by the present arrangements eggs get to the shops with the least avoidable delay; a fair average time between farm and shop is seven to nine days. May I remind the hon. Member that some months ago, in this House, my Parliamentary Secretary invited him to send any suggestions for improvement that he could make? That invitation is still open, but has not yet been accepted.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the right hon. Gentleman really pronounce himself satisfied with the fact that the total overhead charges of the Eggs Division of his Ministry and the National Egg Distributors' Association Ltd., are £1,371,000 this year and that the whole of that cost would be eliminated by allowing the egg traders to operate free from nationalised control?

Mr. Webb: The question about our overhead costs is an entirely separate one, but in recent discussions with the egg packers and egg producers, I found that they rather resent the constant implication of the hon. Member about the quality of their work.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they also resent the suggested economy in public funds?

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food whether he estimates that the supply of shell eggs will justify the sale on an unrationed basis at an early date.

Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 7th February.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the acute hardship which is now being caused to housewives by the combination of the 8d. meat ration and only two stale eggs per week? Is not the mishandling of our egg supplies just as reprehensible as the mishandling of our meat supplies?

Mr. Webb: We are discussing eggs, but I suppose that at the moment we must drag meat into everything. We are making plans with a view to permitting retailers to sell to anybody in the next flush season, as we did last year. As far as we can look ahead, it is fairly clear that we shall do it for at least as long a period as last year and possibly longer.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the necessity of extending the egg priority scheme for children between the ages of two and five? Owing to the cut in the meat ration, children between two and five are suffering considerably from this shortage. Up to the age of two children receive priority eggs, but they do not do so between two and five?

Mr. Webb: I should be glad to give an answer to that question if the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent him abundant evidence of rotten eggs being distributed in the flush season last year and that his Parliamentary Secretary implored me to desist?

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Food the quantity of eggs received at collecting centres in England and Wales for the months of October, November and December, 1950, and for the same months in 1949.

Mr. Webb: The number of eggs packed during these two periods was about 536,500,000 and 382,250,000. If we take into account broken and rejected eggs, the numbers received would be slightly greater.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that no English shell eggs will be broken up for sale in liquid form until every opportunity has been given for the public to buy them as shell eggs.

Mr. Webb: As I have explained in a letter recently sent to the hon. Member, a limited quantity of second quality eggs, which are difficult to sell when eggs are plentiful, will be broken out for canning and freezing for sale to food manufacturers. But there will still be adequate supplies of second quality eggs for the shops.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it that no second quality eggs will be broken down and sold in liquid form until the public have had an opportunity of buying all the second quality eggs they want in the shops?

Mr. Webb: That is a much more lucid way of expressing the answer to the Question.

Sir Herbert Williams: What is a second quality egg?

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless fowl pest is stopped there will be no second quality eggs or first quality eggs either?

Mr. Webb: Do not let us be too alarmist. I agree that the outbreak of fowl pest has led to some concern about egg supplies next spring, but I am advised that it will not unduly lower supplies.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food how much dried egg imported from the United States of America during the last 12 months has been found to be unfit for human consumption; what percentage this is of the total; and to what use it has been put.

Mr. Webb: I am glad to tell the hon. Member that none of the dried egg was found, on arrival, to be unfit for human consumption. One small lot was later damaged by flooding of the store and was destroyed.

Livestock (Marketing)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Food if his consultations with experts on the long-term policy for meat supply include a review of the present system of marketing fat cattle and fat sheep in this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Webb: The purpose of these consultations is to review the entire system of marketing and distribution of livestock and of both home-killed and imported meat. A statement will be made when the consultations have been completed and considered by the Government.

Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that when these consultations take place they will take into account the importance of having the beasts slaughtered close to where they are marketed in order to avoid long railway journeys?

Mr. Webb: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognises, this is an immediate question. I am not at all satisfied with the present arrangements, including the one he has raised. We are doing our best to improve it. It is a different subject from the one in the Question.

Mr. Snadden: Will the question of an autumn glut of British-produced meat be taken into account in the discussion? Surely it is an absurdity to have a glut in the middle of a meat shortage.

Mr. Webb: Yes, indeed, Sir. Last autumn we just got by with the slaughterhouse facilities that we had. We are now taking steps to make sure that we shall be able to handle the increase which we hope to get next autumn.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is proper supervision over the grading of meat in this country, and that there is no deliberate upgrading for the purposes of extracting higher prices?

Mr. Webb: I am not at all satisfied with our present grading system. There are serious defects in it, but every suggested improvement seems, on examination, to make the matter worse. The present grading system seems to be the best we can operate under the system of rationing.

Mr. Boothby: Why were not proper steps taken to secure an adequate supply of slaughter-houses long ago? There were repeated warnings.

Fish and Rabbits

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Food what have been the results of his discussions with the repective trades on high fish and rabbit prices.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement on the imposition of price controls on rabbits following his conversations with the trade.

Mr. Webb: Although it is not yet possible to draw final conclusions of the effects of the recent heavy landings of fish, I am glad to say that the consumers are already getting some benefit from them. Many prices are still high—principally of quality fish which remain scarce, but the retail price of cod has fallen between 2d. and 3d. a 1b.—and in many cases to around the old controlled level. However, since the heavy landings began just over a week ago, I have been carrying out a detailed investigation to find out how far and how widely the retail prices reflect the substantial fall which took place in the price at the ports. That survey will take account of the price over last week-end and during this week, and I will base any further action on the evidence it produces.
As to rabbits—prices remain high, but there has been no marked general upward movement in the last two weeks. In some districts, indeed, there has been a fall in price. Supply remains short owing to reduced supplies from overseas suppliers, and continued unsuitable


weather for home trapping. Even in the most favourable circumstances of good supply, as all experience has shown, it is very difficult— if not impossible—to impose an effective control over rabbit prices. In present conditions, it would, as I have already said, be an even more hazardous undertaking. A controlled price which went at all seriously below the price now prevailing, would stop all overseas supplies coming in (these account for about 50 per cent.), and thus drive the remainder into underground trading channels. In these circumstances, I should only be justified in taking the risks of imposing controls if, (a) present prices went any higher; and (b) if any considerable increase in supplies failed to effect a reasonable reduction in present prices.

Mr. Morley: If his survey of fish prices is not satisfactory in the near future, will my right hon. Friend consider imposing price control on fish?

Mr. Webb: I thought that that was the implication of my answer.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say how long he is prepared to wait in the case of rabbits? Could he explain the connection between the price charged at home and the imported price? I think he said that if he imposed price control at home he would prevent rabbits being imported. Can he say why?

Mr. Webb: I can give no time table for rabbits. I have given an indication that during this week I hope to be able to take a decision, one way or the other, about the price control on fish.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware of the high cost of catching rabbits, that at least 50 per cent. of the value of first sale goes to the catcher, and that if a sale price is imposed the next step will be the gassing of rabbits and then the consumers will not have the benefit of rabbits at all?

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is just now when meat is so short, that the high price of fish causes the greatest amount of hardship and difficulty to the housewife? Could he not reimpose controls, at any rate temporarily, pending improvement in the landings of fish?

Mr. Webb: I cannot add to what I have said about this. I am aware of the

unfortunate concatenation of circumstances which has brought about a high price in fish at a bad season for fishing, when we have a shortage of meat. That is one of the embarrassments of the Minister of Food. But I am quite satisfied, on the most careful examination, that it would have been imprudent to have acted in any other way about the control on fish.

Captain Crookshank: Is not the short answer to all this to hurry up and get some more meat, instead of forcing people to buy expensive alternatives?

Mr. Webb: That is the short answer, but not at any price.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the high prices and scarcity of rabbits, he will now consider further arrangements for supplies from Australia to assist in connection with the small meat ration.

Mr. Webb: Rabbits may be imported freely from Australia by private traders under open general licence. I assume the hon. Member is not suggesting that my Department should re-enter the trade.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been so pleasant to me on Question 41. I will not burden him further on this one.

Overseas Food Corporation

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Food what were the considerations on which His Majesty's Government based their conclusion, stated in Command Paper No. 8125, that the cost of the proposed scheme for a modified Overseas Food Corporation in East Africa would not differ widely from that entailed by the abolition of the Corporation.

Mr. Webb: This conclusion was based on a comparison between the estimated cost of the plan accepted by the Government and the best estimate which the Corporation could make of the heavy liability which they would have had to meet for breach of contract and other commitments if the scheme had been closed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman add to that answer, because a great part of the justification of the new Government proposals in regard to


the groundnuts scheme can only turn on whether it is true that it would cost as much to clear out as to stay on? The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is wholly inadequate and causes the gravest doubts as to the wisdom of the next step.

Mr. Webb: I recognise the truth of that submission. There is a debate tomorrow and I propose to give rather more detailed information then.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If there is any value in Parliamentary debates, should we not have the knowledge now, to allow the House to take a more sensible view when the discussion arises?

Mr. Webb: This is Question Time and I should be rebuked by you, Mr. Speaker, if I were to give a long, detailed, involved answer now.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Food when he will be in a position to supply any interim details regarding the liquidation of the groundnut scheme in Tanganyika.

Mr. Webb: There will be an opportunity to discuss these matters in tomorrow's debate, but if the hon. Member will let me know any specific information he wants I will do my best to see that he gets it.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister answer the point of the Question, which is about the supply of interim details of the liquidation? I did not want any information about tomorrow's debate. I wanted the information about liquidation.

Mr. Webb: That is the subject of tomorrow's debate, and it would require me to occupy the time of the House much longer than is available now.

Mr. Marshall: With respect, does the Minister realise that in tomorrow's debate all these details will go underground and that we shall know nothing about them? That is why I am asking for this specific information.

Mr. S. Marshall: asked the Minister of Food whether any further expenditure of money is contemplated with regard to the cultivation of groundnuts, sunflower seeds and similar products in Tanganyika; and if he will give details.

Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper published on 9th January.

Mr. Marshall: Does not the Minister agree that that is the answer which I thought I should get and that it does not relieve him of answering my Question today. There is no reason why I should have to wait until tomorrow.

Mr. Webb: The answer to the Question has been given. All these details are in the White Paper.

Mr. S. Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what quantity and value of equipment has been sold by the Overseas Food Corporation to the Government of Tanganyika.

Mr. Webb: The disposal of its surplus equipment is a matter for which the Corporation is responsible, and the hon. Member's inquiry is now being considered by its officers.

Milk Transport, Inverness

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the charges for carriage of milk in bottles have been so increased by Messrs. MacBrayne Limited, that in the Inverness area the public has to pay an additional 2d. per pint bottle and 3d. per quart bottle; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve this serious addition to the cost of living in this area.

Mr. Webb: I am not aware of any increases of this kind, but if the noble Lord will let me have details I will have them examined to see if there are any steps which I have the power to take.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these increases are real, and will he also bear in mind that this is just another example of how high transport charges bear on the cost of living in the Highlands? Could he have a talk with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to see whether they cannot do something to ease this burden?

Mr. Webb: I am not sure what power I have over a company of this kind which, as the noble Lord knows, is a semi-independent, private company. If I could have details of the particular matters


which he has in mind I would like to investigate them to see if I have any power to correct them.

Festival of Britain (Visitors)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied that hotels and other establishments accommodating visitors to this country for the Festival of Britain will be able to obtain adequate supplies of food.

Mr. Webb: They will get their share, and I hope they will consider it reasonable.

Air Commodore Harvey: In advertising the many attractions in this country to people in foreign countries, will the Minister make it quite clear that they are not misled in thinking that there will be an abundance of food for them here when they come?

Mr. Webb: I hope, equally, that they will not be misled by suggestions that the people of this country are starving. That is quite untrue. It is a gross distortion of the facts. The food supplies of this country in the last 12 months have been better than they have been for 10 or 12 years.

Mutton, Manchester

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food how much mutton was found unfit for human consumption in a consignment supplied to Manchester at the beginning of February, 1951; what percentage of the total consignment was so found unfit and how long the meat so found unfit had been in store.

Mr. Webb: None, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 878 sheep in this consignment could not be sold until the bad bits had been cut off, and that in the case of 389 of them they were found to be covered with green and slimy mould and were then sent to sausage manufacturers?

Mr. Webb: There was indeed a complaint. We get complaints every week—that is normal. It is not a matter that is confined to the public operation of meat supplies; it has gone on right throughout time. This particular question was settled amicably between the butchers' representatives and my Ministry's local officers.

Miss Horsbrugh: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in connection with this amicable settlement between the butchers and the representatives of the Ministry of Food, how much of that consignment of meat had to be cut off and wasted and at what price the butchers got the remainder?

Mr. Webb: If that question is put down I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: However amicable the settlement may have been, what steps is the Minister taking to prevent further waste of meat?

Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that meat which is, according to my hon. Friend, slimy with mould is not sent to sausage manufacturers?

Mr. Webb: That is a quite inaccurate and misleading suggestion. The control over the quality of meat is not in the hands of my Department at all. It is in the hands of the officers of local authorities, who themselves test the quality of meat and who never allow any bad meat to pass into general circulation. They are most stringent in their tests, and I assure hon. Members that they need have no anxiety on that score.

Imported Food (Cost)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Food why he refuses to disclose the price paid for food bought by his Department from overseas even when the sellers have revealed it.

Mr. Webb: It is generally not in the public interest to disclose prices currently being paid by my Department for purchases from overseas. The disclosure of this information may sometimes prejudice negotiations with different sources of supply; but I have never refused information about past prices unless it was clear that it would prejudice trading operations. Where sellers reveal prices currently being paid, I must reserve freedom to take whatever action is in our best interests. The information given by the sellers may be incomplete or misleading and may often have been put out in the hope of drawing official comment.

Mr. Russell: If the seller gives the correct price, what is the point of denying it? Surely the trade in general knows the correct price?

Mr. Speaker: "If the seller gives the correct price" is, surely, hypothetical.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Does it not become necessary, when the Government are engaged in Government trading, to suppress all criticism because they cannot stand up to it?

Meat

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how many carcases of meat were recently imported from Australia to Southampton; and how many were resold to France at a profit of about £1 a carcase.

Mr. Webb: My Department have not recently imported Australian meat via Southampton, neither have they sold any to France. Perhaps the hon. Member can let me know what grounds he may have for his belief that there have been such transactions.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Food, having regard to the fact that his estimated supplies of meat for the present year per head of the population are 80 per cent. of the pre-war supply, and the ration is less than one-third of the pre-war average consumption, what is happening to the balance of the supply.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Member provides the answer in his own Question, when he refers to estimated supplies of meat for the present year. It would be misleading to compare yearly figures with the ration level at any particular period—such as the present difficult time. Meat supplies are seasonal; for example, we are now getting very little of the home-killed meat which made up a much larger ration last autumn and will, I hope, do so again this year.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures are calculations based on the unchallenged statements made by himself and his right hon. Friend in the recent debate?

Mr. Webb: They are very unfortunate calculations.

Sir H. Williams: Is there any arithmetical error? If so, what?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not possible that the solution may lie in the fact that a lot of people who now eat meat never had it before the war?

Sir H. Williams: A lot of people have been born since then.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is it true that we are now to lose the Webb sausage?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food if he has any information as to the average age of the animals used for the meat for which his Department is paying £177 per ton in France; and to what extent he has had complaints from meat traders about its quality.

Mr. Webb: I cannot say what was the average age of these animals, none of which went to meat traders in the domestic trade. I can say, however, that several manufacturers have commented favourably upon the quality of the meat.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I could not hear the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer. Did he say that this meat went to butchers, or did not go?

Mr. Webb: It did not go.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is fantastic to pay £177 per ton for meat 25 per cent. of which consisted of old bulls just destroyed in France?

Mr. Webb: If we are to have irrelevant facts, I might give an equally irrelevant fact, namely, that the Argentine offered to sell meat to Brazil at £76 per ton.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what was the average price per ton of imports of beef and veal, other than corned, sold on the ration during the year 1950; and what was the average price per ton of imports of canned beef and veal and other descriptions of beef and veal not sold as rationed meat during the year 1950.

Mr. Webb: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister reconsider his policy of encouraging the importation of luxury meat, which housewives cannot afford, and his obstinacy over the importation of rationed meat, which they want so badly?

Mr. Webb: That is a most interesting supplementary question. If it is now the considered policy of the Opposition to restrict private trade in bringing in supplements to our food rations, I would like to have more details.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the argument of the majority of hon. Members of the House is that the trade should be returned to private enterprise?

Mr. Speaker: All the Question asked was about the average price and not about the meat trade generally.

Following is the information:
The average landed costs, excluding duty, for the year ended 31st December, 1950, were, as shown by the Trade and Navigation returns:



Beef £ per ton
Veal £ per ton


Bone-in
97.31
59.71


Boneless
102.58
84.70


Other descriptions, including canned meats and edible offal
173.03
220.84

Bone-in beef and veal are sold mainly on the ration and boneless meat mainly for manufacturing purposes. Of the other descriptions of beef and veal only canned corned meat is sold on the ration.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food how much he has earned as real profit from the British tinned meat sent to Canada, the United States of America and the Argentine.

Mr. Webb: My Department does not profit from these sales as they are made by private traders, but dollar earnings from Canada and the United States of America during the past year were about 250,000 dollars. I repeat, once again, that there are no sales to the Argentine.

Mr. Bossom: If, as the Minister has admitted, we are so short of meat, does he not think that it is the acme of bad judgment to let any meat go out of the country at present in this way?

Mr. Webb: That really means depriving a very important exporting section of private traders of what they regard as

an important element in keeping in contact with their overseas markets. On this side of the House we do not want to prevent private enterprise from having legitimate opportunities of doing good business.

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister say how far he intends to carry out this policy? Does he intend to sell all the meat so that we have none?

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if, having regard to the 10 per cent. increase in world meat supplies, he is satisfied that the United Kingdom is obtaining at least its pre-war proportion of exportable surpluses.

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir. According to the latest estimates published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation the United Kingdom received 74 per cent. of the world's exports of meat in 1950, the same percentage as before the war. The hon. Member will bear in mind that the population of the world has increased as well as its supply of food.

Mr. Hurd: I take it that the answer is "Yes"—that the Minister is satisfied that we are getting our full proportion.

Mr. Webb: We are getting the same proportion as before the war, but in view of the increase in our own population we should like to have a larger proportion.

Dutch Brisling (Imports)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food the quantities, respectively, of pastes, soups, Dutch brisling, tomato ketchup and salad cream he has purchased since 1st January, 1950; how much remains on hand; how much remains unsold or in the hands of retailers; how much has been destroyed as unfit for human consumption; and what has been the loss to the taxpayer on these transactions.

Mr. Webb: My Department have bought no pastes, no soups, no tomato ketchup, nor any salad cream. About 840 tons of Dutch canned brisling was bought in 1949, part of which was imported in 1950. Rather more than half this quantity is still held by my Department. I cannot say how much, if any, remains with retailers. As far as I am aware, only about one hundredweight has been destroyed as unfit for human consumption. As


sales have not yet been completed, I cannot say what the financial outcome will be.

Mr. McAdden: Is the Minister not aware that home-caught brisling is both better in quality and cheaper in price? Why does he continue to waste our money in importing Dutch brisling?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

Enforcement Officers (Cost)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food the total annual cost in expenses of the 581 enforcement officers employed by his Department.

Mr. Webb: About £73,500.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Government realise that they must either abandon their disastrous policy or assume a dictatorship? That is the only outcome.

Mr. Webb: While we have to maintain rationing policies, we must have proper enforcement.

Sir W. Smithers: Snooping.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the cost of the officers of his Department who are involved in investigating transactions that exist only in the imagination of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Poultry Imports

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Food what poultry it is intended to import, either directly through his Department or through private traders, during the months of March and April from countries where fowl pest is endemic.

Mr. Webb: My Department are not importing poultry from any source. Private traders are free to import poultry on open general licence from France and Belgium and on block licence from Poland, but I have no knowledge of the quantities likely to be imported during March and April. There are no imports of poultry from Hungary at present. I should emphasise that all these imports are subject to stringent safeguards, approved by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Dye: Is it not a fact that these safeguards have not so far prevented outbreaks of fowl pest in this country as a result of these imports? Bearing in mind that an arrangement has been made whereby America does not import birds which are infested with fowl pest, why not stop forthwith imports from Continental countries also?

Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend ought to know that on all the evidence so far available it seems to me that the present outbreak of fowl pest arose not from any of these sources of imports, but from American sources of imports.

Mr. Alport: Is any poultry at present being imported from the United States in any shape or form?

Mr. Webb: Not for direct sale to consumers.

Mr. Dye: Has not my right hon. Friend read the answer which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture gave to a Question on this very subject last Thursday, namely, that imports from Continental countries are proved beyond doubt to be a source of infestation?

Mr. Webb: I am in close contact with my right hon. Friend on this matter, but we have to balance two very conflicting and very difficult considerations. The need for imports of poultry is very real. As far as the risk of fowl pest is concerned, my right hon. Friend and I agreed to carry out certain quite stringent regulations, and I am quite prepared to cooperate with him even if it means, in the end, some sacrifice of our imports in order to protect the interests of our own producers.

Mr. Alport: Is poultry still being imported from the U.S.A. direct to American troops serving in this country?

Mr. Webb: That question ought to be put to some other Minister.

Cheese Ration (Farm Workers)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the now plentiful supplies of milk, he will consider granting an extra cheese ration to small holders and farmers continuously engaged in manual work on their own farms.

Mr. Webb: I am sorry that our supplies do not permit us to do this. The reason for supplying extra cheese to farm workers is that they often cannot get home for a meal as a farmer or smallholder can. I could not, in any case, spare the cheese. After fully using our own productive capacity I still have to buy a lot of cheese for dollars to maintain the present ration.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many small farmers and smallholders doing very hard manual work and making a great contribution to our production who also cannot get home for an extra meal and who, even if they could get home, would not have more than an 8d. meat ration or the small amount of cheese ration as protein food to eat? Will he do his utmost to take advantage of the increased milk supplies and alleviate their position?

Mr. Webb: I am very well aware of the difficulty of that section of the community, but they are not the only section with some claim to extra supplies. The problem is that once we begin to have these specialised extensions of the ration scheme one does not know where to draw the line. The real solution is in the need generally to increase the basic ration, which is our aim and purpose.

Coarse Grain Imports

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how much barley and other coarse grains offered at sterling prices he has declined to buy in the past three months.

Mr. Webb: It is impossible to say. The same grain is sometimes offered simultaneously by different sellers and sometimes more than once by the same seller. I do not always, as a measure of elementary commercial prudence, accept the first offer.

Mr. Hurd: How does it happen, if ordinary business shrewdness is used, that the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry failed to buy barley from Iraq last month at £32 10s. and bought this month at £35, the original barley having gone to Holland?

Mr. Webb: If the hon. Member would like details of that I would like it to be put down as a Question.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say in what Government publication all these details of his Department's sales are published, so that we can all be aware of them?

Dried Fruit

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Food if he will ensure that dried fruit imported into this country will be delivered to bakers in a clean condition.

Mr. Webb: Every effort is made, both in conditions of contract and local inspection by our own trained officers, to ensure that only clean dried fruit is shipped to this country. We are not yet, however, back to pre-war standards, partly because much cleaning plant in some producing countries is in need of repair or replacement, partly because of a shortage of water-proof paper and other suitable materials used when the fruit is dried. In existing circumstances it is bound to take some time before these difficulties can be fully overcome, but I am most anxious to do all I can to improve the situation, which, I fully admit, is far from satisfactory.

Wing Commander Bullus: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any other representations on this matter? Would he confirm that it is not from Empire countries that we get the dirty fruit, but rather from foreign countries?

Mr. Webb: The reply to the latter part of that question is that that is quite true. I have had representations, including representations from the trade, and we are doing our best to try to help them.

Captain Crookshank: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that we are not back yet to pre-war standards?

Mr. Webb: Yes.

Captain Crookshank: Then they were better than they are now?

Mr. Webb: Yes.

Peas

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of hand-picked homegrown peas of the 1949 crop he still holds unsold; what quantity of the New Zealand and Tasmanian blue peas of the 1948 and 1949 crops, respectively, he


still holds unsold; what allowance he is now offering to buyers in respect of peas released in London and consigned to the Liverpool or Glasgow port areas; and what is the amount he pays British Railways for the carriage of the said peas from London to Liverpool.

Mr. Webb: About 5,000 tons bought to implement the guarantee to home growers, and about half this quantity of New Zealand peas. No allowance is being offered to buyers in respect of peas released in London and sent elsewhere. The peas are being sold on the basis that the buyer pays transport from the store and the last part of the Question does not therefore, arise.

Sugar Ration (Bonuses)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, with a view to offsetting the small meat ration, he will now consider increasing the sugar ration by eight ounces per person per week.

Mr. Webb: The sugar ration has recently been increased from 8 oz. to 10 oz. a week as from 1st January. In addition there will be some sugar bonuses, details of which are being given today in reply to a written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). These improvements are as much as we can make this year and, I think, will be generally appreciated as an adequate contribution, in the light of our general supply problems, to the food supplies of the nation.

Mr. De la Bere: May we have the detailed part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann)?

Mr. Webb: It is not my fault. If an hon. Member opposite had been present to put a Question which he had addressed to me, the figures would have been given earlier. The details were in my reply to a previous Question. There will be six bonuses this year in addition to the increased ration.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Could the right hon. Gentleman oblige the House by giving us the figures which may, by mischance, not have been given earlier? There is no guarantee that the hon. Member may not have been delayed by some trains having been taken off.

Mr. Webb: I have just given the figure; it is six bonuses this year, beginning in April, [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] The usual bonus of one pound per month.

Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing people who are willing to forgo their sweet ration to buy sugar instead?

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not really possible to do more in the case of this vital necessity? If sugar is not in world short supply surely the Government can do something practical today?

Mr. Webb: We cannot do more this year. I should have thought that any reasonable person, taking account of our dollar difficulties, would have thought that this was not, on the whole, an unacceptable addition to our food supply.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the production of sugar beet last year reached a record level? Why should that not have the effect of increasing the sugar ration?

Mr. Webb: I am well aware of that fact, and we are all delighted about it. It is one of the factors that have enabled us to make these increases.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LIST PENSIONS

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the rising cost of living, he will make a statement announcing appropriate increases in the Civil List pensions to artists, men of letters and others now on the verge of destitution.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The amount available for new pensions or increases in existing pensions was increased by Parliament in 1937 from £1,200 to £2,500 a year. There have been 156 increases in pensions during the last five years, and I intend to continue this policy.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister realise that many distinguished men of letters and their relatives and widows are living on very niggardly sums? Will he not make some inquiries into the matter?

The Prime Minister: There have been increases. The average pension has been


doubled since 1937. Every case is very carefully scrutinised. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind which he would like to bring to my notice, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the statement of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), is the Prime Minister satisfied that a further review of this List not necessary, in view of the greatly increased rise in the cost of living?

The Prime Minister: The cases are reviewed annually. As a matter of fact I am just reviewing them now, and if it should be thought necessary I should be prepared to come to the House. There has been a steady increase in the amounts. I agree that in the past some of them were ludicrously small, but they are now being brought up to reasonable sums.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Villages and Small Towns

Mr. Driberg: asked the Lord President of the Council the reasons which have led the Festival of Britain authorities to select the village of Trowell, Nottinghamshire, for special commendation to Festival visitors; and if consideration will be given to the possibility of similarly commending other villages and small towns, in other parts of the country, which have, like Trowell, shown enterprise in planning their Festival programmes but are also, in their physical aspect, more conventionally beautiful.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Trowell has been chosen as a village whose effort to produce a worthy contribution to the Festival typifies the spirit of such endeavours. The object of this selection is to encourage places which are not conventionally beautiful to seize the opportunity of Festival year and to have a go at improving their amenities. In reply to the second part of the Question, I think it is for villages and small towns to put on the best show they can and for public opinion to judge the results at the time.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware—with all respect to Trowell, which, I gather, is a delightful as well as a typical industrial village—that the basic industry with which most of our villages

and small towns are associated is agriculture? Is he aware that many such places as Finchingfield or Coggeshall, or even places outside Essex, have an equal claim with Trowell to special commendation by the Festival authorities? That is the point.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that every hon. Member will have quite a list of villages which he can suggest. This one was not picked out on the basis of urging people to go there as against other villages. It is an ancient village; the first mention of it was in 802; its motto is "Independence and self-help "—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that might revive the earlier doctrines of the Opposition—and, in the words of the rector, it is the type of English village where the old rural life is passing away and where an industrial community has been superimposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is a funeral, not a Festival."] My information is that it is a good example of a case where the parish council is struggling with an industrial superimposition to prevent the village from being spoiled. It was chosen merely as an example of modern social problems in a village.

Earl Winterton: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, might I ask him whether he could, for the benefit of my constituents and others having rural constituencies, explain the meaning of the term "conventionally beautiful," so that in his eloquent words they may "have a go?"

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that this village combines the strength of modern industry with the peaceful beauty of the English countryside, and is, therefore; typical of England today?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that that is so.

Mr. Oliver: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether conventional beauty or the fact of its being a typical English village was the criterion on which the selection of this village was based? May I also ask him whether my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) had been to see it before he put down this Question?

Mr. Morrison: I do not suppose that for a moment.

Mr. Driberg: Nor had the Festival people when they picked it.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the National Association of Parish Councils for some further recommendations?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think so. I should think that it would split them all over the place.

"Cutty Sark"

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider refitting and putting on show in the Thames for the Festival of Britain the last of the tea clippers, "Cutty Sark," in view of its beauty and as a monument to British shipbuilding.

Mr. H. Morrison: Whilst I have the greatest sympathy with the idea, which has already been given careful consideration by the Festival organisers, I regret that it is impossible. There is no mooring near the South Bank Exhibition capable of accommodating her, and there are other practical problems involved.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the "Cutty Sark" mainly a monument to what can be done by the private importation of tea in comparison with bulk buying?

Mr. G. R. Howard: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Cutty Sark" may in many ways be considered more suitable than the other vessel which, I understand, is being moored off the Festival Gardens, in view of her past experience in trading, and the job that she did in the tea trade?

Captain Ryder: Apart from the Festival of Britain, would the Lord President consider how a monument of this nature could be put on a lasting footing?

Mr. Pickthorn: Is not the "Cutty Sark" naturally an exhibitionist?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this the original "Cutty Sark" mentioned by Burns in "Tam o'Shanter"?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know, but I well remember "Tam o'Shanter."

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Rehabilitation Fund, Korea

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what States have contributed to the United

Nations organisation's fund for the rehabilitation of Korea; and how much cash has been contributed or promised.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Younger): The following States have offered contributions: Australia, Canada, Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, The Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Syria, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela. Individual offers of cash amount to 204 million dollars. Several of the larger pledges are, however, dependent on the offer of adequate contributions by other participants.

Mr. T. Reid: Have Communist-controlled countries contributed nothing?

Mr. Younger: I think that is quite correct.

Arab Relief Programme

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution has been made by the United Kingdom to the Arab relief programme of the United Nations; and what proportion this sum is of the total amount subscribed.

Mr. Younger: In 1949, His Majesty's Government contributed £1 million to the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees, and in 1950 a further £3,200,000, including the £1 million interest-free loan to Jordan, to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. His Majesty's Government have offered to contribute £2,850,000 to the Agency's 1951–52 programme, on condition that other Governments make adequate contributions. Over the whole period covered by these programmes, His Majesty's Government's contribution amounts to about one-fifth of the total subscribed or promised.

Mr. Russell: Does that answer mean that many countries have been backward in making contributions? If so, what steps are being taken to persuade them to contribute?

Mr. Younger: Subscriptions to this very important fund have been rather disappointing and action to try to get further subscriptions has been taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations, who appointed a negotiating committee quite recently for the purpose.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that these unfortunate people have been in a refugee camp for the last four or five years, would not the most valuable contribution His Majesty's Government could make be to ensure the resettlement of them in, for example, some of those African territories where, I think, there is already an Arab population? Will not the hon. Gentleman at least give consideration to that point?

Mr. Younger: I will certainly give consideration to that. It is rather a wide question which the noble Lord has raised. Resettlement is a matter which the United Nations Agency wishes to pursue, but shortage of funds makes it rather difficult.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my hon. Friend say what contribution has been made to this fund by the Arab countries?

Mr. Younger: Not without notice.

Sir Ronald Ross: Has there been any diminution in the great stress from which these people have been suffering?

Mr. Younger: I could not, without notice, give an up-to-date answer about precise conditions.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the House be told whether contributions so far have been actual or merely promises; and, secondly, what action the Foreign Office have taken to try to get the maximum of help for these people out of the Israeli Government?

Mr. Younger: I should want notice of the second part of that question. The total subscribed for 1949, I think, was £8 million, and approximately £15 million was subscribed for the following year.

Mr. Pickthorn: Actual or promises?

Mr. Younger: Actually subscribed, I think. The figure for the later year, including promises, amounts to about £12 million, but I have not got the proportion between the actual subscriptions and the promises.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this money is being well spent? Is he aware that I recently visited a camp where 7,000 Arab refugees were living in intolerable conditions? What will be done to settle these people on the land and give them work?

Mr. Younger: Conditions out there are extremely difficult, particularly in view of the fact that the amount considered essential was about double what has actually been subscribed. We think that the Agency has done its best in this matter, but, undoubtedly, with the very large number of refugees involved, the conditions are not all that they should be.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say whether Egypt has been called upon to make an adequate contribution?

Mr. Younger: I think that all countries have been asked to make a contribution, but I should need notice before I could give the result.

Major Legge-Bourke: Bearing in mind the considerable sums which His Majesty's Government have already given to this fund, will the Minister consider the desirability of achieving a more satisfactory machinery to prevent further outrages which cause the need for further funds, particularly in connection with the mixed Armistice Commission, which seems to be very ineffective at the moment?

Mr. Younger: That is another question.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the great feeling on this subject which there is in all parts of the House, could not the Government make a considered statement about the present conditions of the fund, the possibility of resettlement and the general urgent needs in this connection?

Mr. Younger: I will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CRIMINALS, GERMANY (RELEASE)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent there is joint consideration between the High Commissioners in Western Germany on questions of mutual interest such as the release of war criminals; and with whom the power of decision resides.

Mr. Younger: It was agreed at the end of the war that apart from the major war criminals, who were tried under quadripartite auspices, war criminals should be


tried by the Allied authorities of the different zones. It follows that questions regarding the review and modification of sentences imposed by United Kingdom, United States and French courts are not dealt with on a basis of joint consideration, but are the individual responsibility of the respective national authorities as represented by their High Commissioners. I should add that in the case of the United Kingdom zone, where responsibility in regard to war criminals has hitherto lain with the United Kingdom High Commissioner, the position, as my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, stated on 12th February, is at present under consideration.

Mr. Davies: Is not there a danger of differing practices leading to misunderstandings, and have not recent examples shown that some of the releases have been, I should have thought, unacceptable to many people in the world, who have no control over them?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the sentences under review are judicial sentences, and that one has to be very careful about the manner in which they are reviewed. There has been a certain exchange of information between the High Commissioners about their intention to review and the general principles they propose to apply.

Mr. Boothby: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that more active steps should be taken to bring to a conclusion the quiet but sustained civil war going on between the British and American High Commissioners in Germany?

Mr. Younger: I entirely deny the implication in the last supplementary question.

Mr. Paget: Will His Majesty's Government consult with Dr. Adenauer's Government on this question, which seems to me to be an important thing to bring about?

Mr. Younger: It is essentially a matter for consideration between the Allies.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. The answer just given refers to this as a matter for consideration, Sir. When I sought to ask a Question on this matter

the other day I was refused, on the grounds that there was no responsibility. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman is now accepting responsibility.

Mr. Younger: I said that it was a matter for consideration by the Allies, but not that all aspects should necessarily be a matter of consultation between them.

Mr. Janner: In view of the grave matters of principle involved here, will my hon. Friend take steps to bring any further recommendations of remissions of sentences before the United Nations organisation so that at least human rights may be considered?

Mr. Younger: I do not think this is a matter which, prima facie, it would be appropriate to bring before the United Nations organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTARCTIC (ARGENTINE EXPEDITION)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his approval was sought or obtained by the Argentine Government for the proposed visit of a military and scientific expedition, which recently embarked in the Santa Micaela, to the Britisch Antarctic zone; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: No such approval was sought or obtained by the Argentine Government. As has often been stated in this House, His Majesty's Government do not recognise Argentine claims to sovereignty over any part of the Falkland Islands Dependencies, and have on several occasions protested to the Argentine Government through the diplomatic channel about unauthorised incursions into these territories. Local protests have also been delivered as and when the occasion offered.

Sir J. Mellor: What action is the Foreign Office taking to prevent the Argentine Government from acquiring squatters rights in this British possession?

Mr. Younger: We are taking action open to us to maintain our legal claim. We have, as the House has been informed, offered to submit this matter to the International Court; but that offer has not yet been accepted.

Captain Ryder: Was not there an agreement that there would not be a naval demonstration in the Antarctic? What is the difference between a military demonstration carried out on the high seas and a naval demonstration carried out on shore?

Mr. Younger: An answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 12th February explained the position about the naval operation, which is a rather different matter from this expedition.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the views of the Pacific Dominions are fully considered in connection with any future peace treaty with Japan.

Mr. Younger: Since the Canberra Conference in August, 1947, there has been continuous consultation on the Japanese peace treaty, both at Ministerial and at official level, between His Majesty's Government and all the Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Fletcher: How about the journey of Mr. John Foster Dulles from Japan to Australia and New Zealand? Were the Government kept fully informed of that journey, and all matters of policy to be discussed there, so that proper coordination with all the Powers interested in the Japanese peace treaty could be maintained?

Mr. Younger: I think I said last week in the House that we have had very full but informal consultations with Mr. Foster

Dulles about his journey. We were fully aware of the visit he was about to pay to Australia.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS (GUATEMALAN CLAIM)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government propose to renew their offer to take the dispute with Guatemala regarding British Honduras before the International Court; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: A declaration renewing His Majesty's Government's offer for a further period of five years from 12th February, 1951, has been sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. His Majesty's Government regard their case as indisputable. Guatemala has not taken advantage of His Majesty's Government's original offer of 13th February, 1946, but a period of five years without response from Guatemala was not considered sufficient to establish definitely that she does not wish to attempt to sustain the legal merits of her case before the court. His Majesty's Government hope that she will yet agree to take the question before the court and thus settle this controversy.

Mr. Smithers: Does that answer mean that the offer will not remain open indefinitely, regardless of whether the Government of Guatemala choose to make use of it?

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir, I think I can agree with that. We do not propose that this should remain open indefinitely, but we thought it wise to renew it on this occasion.

Orders of the Day — LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), "That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee."—[Mr. McNeil.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INCLUSION OF CERTAIN WAR DAMAGE WORKS IN DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT.)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after "damage," to insert:
the cost of which exceeds two hundred pounds and.

The Deputy-Chairman: Would it be convenient to discuss this Amendment and the similar one to Clause 3 at the same time?

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir Charles.
On Second Reading, several hon. Members on this side of the House, while entirely accepting the need for an Amendment in principle similar to this amendment of the main Act, wondered whether it was necessary and desirable for the exception to apply in the case of all war damage repairs. It was suggested that there might well be a limit on value so that those comparatively small works necessary for repairing property which has been slightly damaged should not be brought within the mischief of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply on this point, said:
With regard to blitz repairs, all the minor works, generally speaking, have, in fact, been already carried out. After all, it is now five

or six years since work of that sort was started in such cities as London, Bristol, Plymouth and others. Therefore, whilst it is true that this Bill deals with both major and minor works, all the minor works have been carried out, and so the hon. Member's point about the need for a distinction between major and minor works does not in practice arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1951. Vol. 483, c. 72.]
We have tried to make some inquiries about this since the Second Reading. We did not find complete confirmation of what the Parliamentary Secretary, no doubt in complete good faith, had said upon the subject. While it is true that a very great deal of work has been done in the last six years, our information is that it would not be true to say that there does not still remain a large number of small repairs made necessary by the original war damage which, it seems to us, it is desirable should be carried out without this restriction. It is for that reason that we suggest this Amendment.
We in no way criticise the principle of the Measure. We are, however, most anxious that this should not be a blanket rule to apply everywhere under the General Development Order, but that it should apply only to such major works of reconstruction as would really interfere with the development plan. Therefore, we put forward this Amendment, not in the least wedded to the actual value or to the wording of it, but in a desire to ensure that, as far as possible, this amending Bill will be a flexible and useful instrument for effecting the main purpose and will not result in a great deal of additional administrative work.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): The object which the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson) has in mind is, of course, a very proper one which we all share. At the same time, for reasons which I shall give, I hope that he will not press this Amendment. It is true that, as the Bill stands, even the very smallest works would be controlled. It may well be said, as he has said, that there should be some saving from so wide a sphere. But, in fact, there is a General Development Order now in operation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a series of orders. The latest is that of May of last year which was issued after I came to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and which contains a number of easements which he will recall.
Under that General Development Order, the restoration of war damage continues to be permitted development, except in cases in which a direction has been issued. Broadly speaking, the restoration of what one might call scattered war damage—that is, not the blitzed cities, but small scattered areas of war damage—has been dealt with, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary quite truly said. At any rate, a very large part, if not all of it, has been dealt with. In any case, the restoration of scattered war damage continues to be permissible under the General Development Order. I think that particular cases where directions have been issued relate, in practically every case, to what we know as the blitzed cities, the heavily war damaged areas, where I think it is common ground that we wish the local authority to have a clear field. With the object of giving them that clear field, this Clause is inserted in the Bill.
Even where there has been a direction, the usual practice has been to exclude from the terms of the direction works value £100. The hon. Gentleman wants the figure to be £200 in all cases, but I think it is better to keep the position a little elastic. Particular cases will vary. If, for example, we have a damaged slum dwelling in a general development area, if it is hardly worth reconstructing but only worth patching up, then £200 would be too much. If, on the other hand, we have a reasonably good though damaged commercial property with a life of at least 10 years in front of it, then £200 might be too little.
I venture to express the view that it is better to leave the matter rather elastic, subject to the safeguards which I have indicated, and I would be prepared further, in order that we might get agreement, if we can, if the Amendment is not pressed, to go over the various directions that have been issued already in order to satisfy myself, looking at the matter with a fresh eye, that they do fit the conditions of the particular area concerned. I am anxious to keep the thing elastic, and I think this Amendment would have the effect of introducing an element of rigidity which really would not be helpful.

Mr. Molson: I am very much indebted to the Minister for his very clear statement as to the way in which the directions are issued. As a matter of fact, I asked

that very question in the course of the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Second Reading debate. I said:
I also asked the hon. Gentleman … whether the experiment had been tried in the case of the directions to say that they should only apply to work involving expenditure of more than a certain amount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 71.]
I have no complaint to make about it, but the Parliamentary Secretary, in fact, did not deal with that particular point, and that is why I put down this Amendment. I am very glad to learn that, in fact, a provision of that kind is generally included in the directions. Quite obviously, the sum of £100 is just as good as £200, and in view of the very satisfactory explanation which we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.45 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: During the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I ventured to raise a point which I think it proper to ask the Committee to consider again now. I believe it to be a matter of some importance and one affecting the position of constituents of all, or nearly all, hon. Members. I was concerned with the cases of certain owners of war-damaged premises whose compensation has been assessed as a value payment. That value payment contains nothing in respect of the owner's loss arising from a refusal to permit development to restore the building.
I took the view on Second Reading that that difficulty, which seems to me to be a real difficulty, could have been surmounted if the new development created by this Bill had been placed in the second part of the Third Schedule and not in the first part. As it was, it seemed to me that an injustice would be done to this class of owners of property, because the compensation, assessed at a value payment, contains nothing in respect of the loss which the owner may have sustained from having been refused permission to restore his war damaged property.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been very helpful about this in the interval, and the matter has been thoroughly investigated. He has written


to me about it, and has drawn my attention to the fact that, if land is compulsorily acquired, the owner's compensation is covered; that is to say, the point which I raised on Second Reading is covered by the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the 1947 Act, because if land is not compulsorily acquired, the value of the interest is, by that Section, ascertained upon the assumption that planning permission is granted. That covers the point in large part, and I wish that it ended the difficulty altogether, but the sad fact is that it does not. I think it right, therefore, at this stage to pursue the matter a little further, in order that, perhaps before the next stage of the Bill is reached, further illumination may be shed upon this problem.
The difficulty that still persists arises from the fact that the Minister need not confirm the purchase notice; in other words, where permission is applied for and refused, it does not follow that the land will be compulsorily acquired, nor does it follow, therefore, that Section 51 will come into operation, because what the Minister can do, in lieu of confirming the notice, is to grant permission for some lesser development than that for which the owner sought permission. If he does that, the land will not be compulsorily acquired, and the owner of the property will find himself refused permission to carry out the development which he wanted to carry out, but allowed, instead, to carry out some lesser or smaller development which the Minister can say will amount to reasonably beneficial use of the land. When that happens, the owner of those premises receives no compensation at all.
It may be that the permission for which he asked was permission to build up his war-damaged house to its previous extent of four storeys. The Minister, or the planning authority, may require that the house should be built up to only two storeys, or that it should be set back from its former frontage. All kinds of developments may be required by the Minister, and they would have the effect that the land would not be compulsorily acquired, and, therefore, Section 51 would not come into effect. The owner of the property would be disadvantaged, and in a way in which he could not have been disadvantaged if this Bill had not become law.
In my view of the matter, a situation might arise which would work out extremely unfairly. We might have a case involving two owners of property whose premises are adjacent one to the other, such as two houses in the same street. One of these houses maybe war-damaged, whereas the house next door is not war-damaged at all. The owner of the house which is not war-damaged may take his house down, practically to the foundations, and rebuild it in a manner which will not materially affect the exterior of his house, and he can do so without getting permission from anyone. He can do that because under Section 51 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act that would not be a development at all.
The owner of the war-damaged house may desire to conduct exactly the same degree of building upon his house, but he has to seek permission. That is an inequality at the outset. The permission may be refused. If it is refused entirely and the land is compulsorily acquired, then the owner will get compensation under Section 51—that is the point which has been cleared up by the Parliamentary Secretary—but there is the other possibility that the land will not be compulsorily acquired because the Minister gives a conditional permission to build not the same house as existed upon the site before, but another house, perhaps lower or set further back, or subject to some such restriction. That may be a very beneficial use of the land and yet a use of far less value to the owner than would have been its use had he been given permission to build the house as it stood before it suffered war damage.
These are somewhat involved, but none the less important, points, and I bring them forward now because I desire to give my right hon. Friend the opportunity of considering them before the next stage of the Bill. After all, a great number of persons are affected by this. In my own constituency, where considerable war damage occurred, large numbers of people are affected, and I think there is a point here which still requires clarification. This Bill was first presented to us as if it were largely declaratory of the existing position, something in the nature of a formality setting doubts at rest. But I think it is rather more than that, and I am still not satisfied that owners of war-damaged property may not be


adversely and unfairly affected by its provisions. My difficulties, which I expressed during the Second Reading stage of the Bill, have been in large part cleared up, but not entirely removed.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to look at one small point of drafting before the subsequent stage of the Bill. It is the point to which the Amendment which was not selected was directed. I think there is a slip in the drafting as will be seen by the right hon. Gentleman if he will contrast the curious phrase used in line 9 of page 2:
any works being such as aforesaid
with the normal phrase:
any such works as aforesaid.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I did not select that Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: I realise that, Sir Charles, and that therefore I cannot move the Amendment, but I submit that on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I am entitled to point out an apparent mistake in the drafting—an unfortunate contrast between subsections (2) and (3)—which the right hon. Gentleman may wish to correct. If you will give me permission to put the point to the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Charles, I promise not to detain the Committee for more than another minute.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at subsection (2) he will see the phrase, "such works as aforesaid," and the same in the proviso to subsection (2). I think it is merely a slip that the same phrase does not appear in the proviso to subsection (3). Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consult his advisers with a view to correcting it if he thinks fit.

Mr. John Hay: On Second Reading, both the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) and I drew attention to a point which he has raised again this afternoon. On that occasion, I went so far as to invite the Government to put down their own Amendment to cover the point which he and I had in mind. I must admit that I was not so concerned with those who were to get value payments as with those who were to get cost-of-works payments. Since there is no Government Amendment on the Order

Paper, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered that point again.
My point is simply that where war damage has occurred to a building and the owner is entitled to a cost-of-works payment, he can only use that money to carry out repairs to the identical site where the damage was incurred, and, unless he gets planning permission—as he will now he required to do under this Bill—he will not be able to use the money upon repairs to any other site. What I had really in mind was a question which I understand has been raised before in this House, the "portable cost-of-works payment." I understand that it is sometimes dealt with by administrative action, but I should like to know whether the Government have looked at this point again, and, if so, whether they are prepared to consider some provision for assisting the kind of person I have in mind who is going to be in difficulty if he comes up against a stubborn local authority which may not be prepared to grant him planning permission in that particular case.

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) is still not quite happy about this Clause. I shall try to set his fears at rest. This is frightfully technical stuff, and I apologise, as, I think all hon. Members should who introduce technicalities into this debate. I am advised that where land is compulsorily acquired, the compensation is assessed on the assumption that planning permission will be granted for any development included in the Third Schedule. Therefore, the refusal of planning permission would not influence the price of the land under Section 51 of the Act. But there is also Section 20 (3) of the Act—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been giving attention to that—which provides that if permission is granted for a lesser development than the total applied for, then compensation for the difference is payable. That being so, I think my hon. Friend's constituents can rest happily in their beds.
So far as the particular hypothesis which he has indicated is concerned, I would go a stage further and say that, in practice, purchase notices are confirmed in practically every case where blitz arises. Therefore, I think that, on the one hand, the hypothetical case he


raises is very infrequent, and that, on the other, when it does arise, it is taken care of.

Mr. Irvine: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but there is just this point. My recollection is that Section 20 deals with development in the second part of the Third Schedule, and my whole difficulty arose from the fact that this amending Bill applies this development to the first part.

Mr. Dalton: I do not think that affects the issue, but I will have a final look at my hon. Friend's final fear.

Mr. Molson: To what Section was the right hon. Gentleman referring?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I was referring to Section 20 (3).
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) raised a much wider matter, namely, what he described as a "portable cost-of-works payment," and that, of course, is a much bigger proposition than anything in this Bill. It has often been debated, and when I was at the Treasury I used to know the case against it; and a formidable case can be deployed against it. But that lies quite outside this Bill and it would only be possible to consider it at all in a very much larger amending Measure and that, at present, is not before the Committee.

Mr. Hay: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my inquiry whether anything can be done by administrative action to meet this difficulty?

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid that it is beyond administrative action. I have looked at it with attention and sympathy but I am afraid it cannot be done. Once one opens that particular gate, it lets many sheep through, more than perhaps the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) would wish to see. With regard to the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss), his Amendment was not selected, and therefore it would not be proper for me to dilate upon it beyond saying that I always sympathise with him in his desire for pure and terse English. However, I will look at it again, though I am advised that this is a deliberate variation of phraseology to meet the conditions.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman has apologised for the technical nature of the reply, but the only clear thing that emerges from this discussion—with which I am sure you, Sir Charles, if you were allowed to say so would agree—is that it illustrates the need for a fundamental change and a tidying up and elucidation of this very complicated matter. I confess that when the right hon. Gentleman was first appointed to his new job as Minister of Town and Country Planning I entertained, with my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side, some hope that the result of his being free to devote his undoubtedly great talents to these problems would have been a new Measure really simplifying the matter and clearing a way through this jungle. I am sorry to say that I am afraid that now that he has still another job, it may result in his attention being diverted. If he can devote a short time to trying to clear it up he will receive the plaudits not only of this side of the House but of a large section of the community.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the record, verify the reference to Section 20 (3) of the Act which he mentioned in reply to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) as it appears to me that it may be an error?

Mr. Dalton: I will verify it, but that was the information given to me.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND CONSTRUCTION.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after "Planning," to insert "(Amendment)."
The right hon. Gentleman in his introductory speech on the Second Reading said:
This is a short and simple Bill. … Its aim is simply stated: to correct two errors in drafting, which experience and legal advice have revealed, in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act.
and later he went on:
Here again the 1947 Act is defective according to the advice which we have received from the Law Officers of the Crown."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1951; Vol 483, c. 43–44.]


In view of the fact that there are a good many Town and Country Planning Acts upon the Statute Book—and there are likely to be more—and since it is quite obvious that this small Bill is really intended solely to amend the principal Act, it seems to me it would make for simplicity and accuracy if it were called the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Dalton: I have a perfectly open mind on this. Of course it goes against the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) who had an Amendment on the Order Paper. Whereas he tries to save a word, this adds a word to the Title of the Bill. To that extent it makes it longer, and to that extent the hon. and learned Member for Norwich would not approve of it but, so far as I am concerned, I have a completely open mind. If it is the general feeling of the Committee that the Amendment be accepted I shall not resist it.

Mr. Hay: I would certainly support the view expressed in this Amendment. I think it is very desirable that one should (have the word "Amendment" in the Title of the Bill. To most lawyers, estate agents, surveyors and valuers, the Town and Country Planning Act means one thing and that is the last big Act. This Amendment is a clarification and I strongly support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.8 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a minor Bill designed to clarify the powers of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. It cannot be regarded as playing any part in the series of major Bills which have marked the development of the E.C.G.D. to the important role it fulfils in our export trade today. The House will be familiar, and the right

hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in particular will be familiar with that series leading up to the Overseas Trade Act 1929, the Export Guarantees Act 1937, the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, and the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act, 1939 with which I think the right hon. Gentleman was intimately connected, and also the Export Guarantees Acts 1945, 1948 and 1949. These have successively set forth and extended the powers of the Department.
This Bill now before the House confirms powers which we had thought were given in the 1939 and the 1949 Acts, but about which there seems room for considerable doubt. I very much regret to have to trouble the House by asking for these powers, the more so as in the Bill it is necessary to ask for retrospective confirmation of actions already taken by the Department, something to which I think no Minister likes asking the House to agree and which the House itself is always somewhat doubtful about.
I also have to apologise and draw the attention of the House to a clerical error which occurred in the first paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The words which appear there are:
… the Board of Trade, acting on behalf of the Export Credits Guarantee Department …
They should read:
… the Board of Trade through the Export Credits Guarantee Department …
I think it is recognised by the House that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is the agent of the Board and not the Board the agent of the Department.
What the Bill is designed to do is to make it clear that the E.C.G.D. can provide cover for transactions by an overseas subsidiary of a parent company in the United Kingdom. Under the Bill this cover can be given in either of two ways —by means of guarantees given to the parent company in the United Kingdom in respect of losses incurred by its overseas subsidiary; or by means of guarantees given direct to the overseas subsidiary.
It was assumed, after the Act of 1939 was superseded by the Act of 1949, that the far wider powers conferred by the later Act would cover both of these types of guarantees to which I have just referred. Indeed, since the 1949 Bill


became law, the Department has in fact given them. I now have to tell the House that the Government are advised that the 1949 Act does not in fact give these powers, and, indeed, that guarantees given after 1939 to cover the United Kingdom parent companies against losses by overseas subsidiaries were not in fact covered by the 1939 Act, as I think was at that time supposed. The need for these guarantees in connection with dollar export trade in particular—although, of course, the need is not confined to dollar export trade—will be obvious to the House. It certainly is obvious to the very large number of exporters and traders who make use of it.
As the House knows, at a critical time in the development of the dollar export drive the Department announced new forms of assistance to the dollar exporter in the assumption of a major part of the risks to which dollar export trade is particularly prone. These included in particular guarantees in connection with the building of stocks—an essential measure for many types of exports to North America—and guarantees in connection with promotional or representational expenditure in the dollar areas. In many cases this has to be done, or at any rate can best be done, by overseas subsidiaries.
But, as I have said, we have now been advised that since as a matter of law a holding company has no insurable interest in the earnings of its subsidiaries, these transactions cannot be said to be a guarantee or a contract of indemnity within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, Clause 1 (1) of this new Bill puts this matter right. The House will have noticed that in this subsection there is reference to any deficit on an account relating to activities of both companies. This has been included so that guarantees can be given under the new Joint Venture protection which is available for exports to dollar markets.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 deals with the guarantees given direct to the subsidiary company, and the advice that we have received makes it clear that guarantees direct to the subsidiary cannot be considered as being for the benefit of the parent company under Section 1 (1) of the 1949 Act. Here again subsection (2) of Clause 1 puts this matter right. As I have made clear, guarantees of both kinds

have, in fact, been made since the passing of the 1949 Act, and therefore subsection (3) of Clause 1 provides the necessary retrospective statutory recognition. I hope the House will give its warm approval to this small but essential Bill.
In previous debates on the Export Credits Guarantee Department there has been a lively appreciation in all parts of the House of the great work that the Department is doing. I should be going very wide of the Bill if I were to give any survey of the Department's work, but it might help to put this Bill in its true perspective if I were to tell the House that the numbers of exporters with commercial guarantees current at the end of 1950—that is, guarantees under Section 1 of the 1949 Act—was just over 3,000. That number has doubled over the last three or four years and is still steadily rising.
The total value of business guaranteed under the commercial section of the Act at the end of 1950 was just over £320 million compared with just over £240 million at the end of 1949—an increase of £80 million, or 33 per cent. in a single year. In addition to the commercial guarantees, at the end of 1950 the Department had assumed liability in respect of the special guarantees covered in Section 2 of the 1949 Act amounting to some £34 million, and these in particular include a considerable number of special guarantees designed to facilitate exports to North America.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman has given some interesting figures relating to the values, which have risen. Could he tell us anything about the volume?

Mr. Wilson: It would be impossible to provide any index of volume of work done by the Department. Certainly if I were comparing 1950 figures with 1938, when the right hon. Gentleman was concerned with this, the great increase which has occurred since then would have to be discounted considerably by the rise in prices; but with respect to the figures which I was quoting for the end of 1950 compared with 1949, although there has been some increase in price—perhaps 5, 6 or 7 per cent.; I have not the exact figure in my head—the increase in value is a fair if slightly overstated indication of the growth in the Department's business.
In comparison with these impressive total figures—I am sure the House will agree they are impressive; in fact, I think the right hon. Gentleman has just said they were—of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's business, the value of the guarantees which the Department is likely to issue under this Bill will, I think, be comparatively small. The amounts at present guaranteed in this way add up to some £6 million. But the importance of these guarantees cannot be measured in purely statistical terms. They represent an addition to the flexibility of the Department's operations and to the effectiveness of the service which the Department can offer, particularly in the shape of these highly important dollar export policies. To judge from the interest shown by the trading and exporting community in these special dollar export facilities, the indications are that as we go forward into 1951 we shall see a considerable increase in volume above the figure which I have just quoted.
After the recent speeches of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer I know that I do riot need to stress the importance of maintaining and, indeed, expanding the volume and value of our export trade, and in particular the high priority of our trade with dollar areas. I am confident that with the great trust and confidence which the House has in the Export Credits Guarantee Department, its highly efficient staff and the great service rendered by the Advisory Council, the House will be prepared to give to the Department these powers which it can so fruitfully use.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Leather: In rising to welcome this Bill, I must declare to the President of the Board of Trade a very special and personal interest in it. I have probably done more than anyone to cause the trouble which has brought about this Bill, because I believe I am the right hon. Gentleman's best customer. I am a member of a firm, Credit Insurance Association Limited. They are, I believe, the only specialist brokers in the country, and I think the Minister's advisers would probably tell him that we are certainly their No. 1 headache and I believe, their largest customer.
The Minister has given us the opportunity, as he said, to go a bit wide and

make a survey of this Department. Therefore, I should like to make one or two points which are perhaps outside the scope of the Bill but which are vitally important to the Department and to their clients who hold these guarantees. Before doing so, however, I should like to make one other small point. In previous debates on this subject a matter has been raised which has never been answered. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows the answer, but it has never been given in this House.

Mr. H. Wilson: I should not like the hon. Member to misquote even a very minor part of what I said. I said that I did not propose to go wide of the Bill, and therefore I could not enter into any general treatment of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which I am sure would be very helpful to the Department, are going to be in any sense critical of the Department, I should like to make it clear that there is a lot I could have said about the general work of the Department which I did not think it right to say this afternoon.

Mr. Leather: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that any criticism I may offer will be constructive, because the last thing I should dare to do would be to offend his advisers. They could easily put me out of business.
It has been said in the House on previous occasions when debating this subject that this is something which the insurance companies would not do. The question which was asked was, "Why do not the insurance industry give this cover?" And the reasoning from that was that it was not profitable for them to do so and that the responsibility was thrown upon the Government. I should like to emphasise that that is not true, and I am sure the President would agree with me. It would be physically impossible, for the insurance companies to give this kind of cover because it is a type of cover where you have all your eggs in one basket. I am told, for instance, that at the outbreak of the 1939 war, the Department paid out in claims more than the whole of its reserves. Obviously, any insurance company which did business on that basis would be taking money from all its other policy-holders on false pretences.
The President gave the figures of the business done. I believe I am correct in saying that since the Act of 1939 the amount of the Department's business has multiplied by something like 1,000 to 1,200 per cent. The point I want to make is that that business is still being handled—and there is no proposition in the Bill to alter it—by nothing larger than the administrative staff which dealt with it before the war. I do not know whether this problem requires legislation or whether the Minister has power to put it right; probably he could deal with it administratively. In any event, the result is that we are now causing the most serious bottleneck, and the criticisms of the Department which I wish to make are based entirely on that one fact.
There has been a tremendous spurt in the last two years, as the Minister's figures bear out, and I hope I am in order in saying that we and most of our policy holders, who are his customers—I think that is the correct phrase to use—would like to pay a tribute to the present Comptroller-General and his senior staff. They have done a magnificent job. There is one thing I must say to the Minister, however; his present Comptroller-General began his operations when they threw the dollar drive at him, with the result that other sides of the Department's work have definitely suffered. The concentration of energy has been on the dollar drive, to the detriment of the other and very wide functions of the Department, to which a large part of this Bill refers. The majority of cases affected here are, so far as I know, in connection with Pakistan and India, for fairly obvious reasons—because people judge the risks in those countries today differently from the way they judged them before the war.
I have a list in my hand of quotations outstanding, where we are waiting for the Department, who take five or six or seven weeks to cover them. Policies are taking anything up to six months to go through. The slowest of the insurance companies—and some of them are slow—are not as slow as all that. I can give the Minister these facts and figures if he would like to have them, but what I seek to emphasise is that we believe very strongly that the reason for the delay is that the top officials in the Department

are greatly overworked and greatly under-staffed.
I do not know whether it would need a Bill to put that right or whether the Minister can put it right. His Department is not a normal Government Department; it is a commercial organisation which operates on commercial lines. The Minister might well say that this plea sounds very odd coming from these benches—a plea for more and more civil servants with more and more responsibility; but that is precisely the plea I would make in this case, because it is an exceptional case. These men are dealing with a business organisation quite outside the normal functions of any Government Department. They are hampered by great shortages of staff. It is not uncommon for a letter dictated by one of the senior officials to take a week or ten days to be typed.
The question of the delegation of responsibility is even more important because we all find that, instead of being able to go to the next chap along the line with whom we should expect to deal, time and time again we have to go to those at the top. Apart from dealing with these five or six people at the top, it is quite impossible to get a decision at all. Yet the more we bother them, the worse the bottleneck becomes and the further behind the Department becomes in dealing with the requests which we put to them. I have in mind a case of a contract with one of the largest aircraft companies in this country —a contract in South America running to several millions of pounds—which was lost because they did not know the key men in the Department, they did not know which officers to go to, they went to the wrong chap and got the wrong answer, and it took so long to reach a decision that the contract was lost. That sort of thing happens every day of the week.
These are administrative problems which are vital to the exporting industries of this country and I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that he is aware of them and that he is aware of the bottlenecks caused by the fact that his senior officials are overworked and, therefore, are not capable of dealing with the business as they should. That is largely due to shortage of staff and, I believe, to their constitutional inability under the


Act to delegate responsibility down the line.

4.27 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I want to ask the President one or two questions. He gave some very interesting figures, particularly in regard to the special guarantees. What puzzles me when I look at the amount is the fact that they are always shown in terms of sterling. Is he certain that that sterling is represented by foreign currencies which are at his disposal? It may be that the Treasury gives him sterling and he surrenders the foreign currency, but I should like to be assured that the sterling sums shown are transferable and available to this country.
The right hon. Gentleman said that £6 million is at present guaranteed to subsidiaries which are outside the terms of existing legislation and which he wishes to cover by this Bill. Does he anticipate that £6 million will be the total additional sum which will be required by his Department or does he expect a considerable increase in this type of business? If he does expect a considerable increase, I should be grateful if he would tell us the figure which he anticipates will be needed. During the discussion of previous Bills we have demanded very close estimates from the right hon. Gentleman of the amount of credit he wants and the reasons why he wants it. I should not like to see this Bill become an Act without some similar definite figure having been given. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give it this afternoon, I hope he can give it on the Committee stage.
My last question is this. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with subsidiaries. Was he contemplating simply wholly-owned subsidiaries, or was he contemplating subsidiaries which are partly owned by a parent company in this country and partly owned abroad? I think he must have been thinking of the latter more than of the former but, if so, perhaps he could tell us a little more about how he intends to insure the risk as far as the Department is concerned. Very often there are special currency regulations for foreign countries to which we want to export. I have in mind the case of Ireland, where the majority of money in the companies has to be Irish held. We can have only a subsidiary interest in such cases.
There are, of course, many other similar cases. How does the President intend to ensure that the money he advances will be repaid? If it came to a clash between the interest of the subsidiary and the interest of the holding company, he might often be outvoted. This is a real problem because, if my information is correct, that sort of situation is potential in many cases. I do not say that it is likely to arise, but it is potential, and I should like to feel that we have safeguarded against it in some way or another. I think if those few minor points were dealt with it would add to the clarity of the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to welcome this Bill and support it. I should not have thought it necessary to intervene merely in order to say that, but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). It is only fair to say that I do not think that the experience described by him and the criticisms that he has made of the running of this Department are by any means general. I have met a number of people who have had experience of dealing with the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and their reaction has been invariably one of pleasure and satisfaction at the way in which the Department is functioning.
Admittedly, it is a Department which has a great many difficulties, and requires a great deal of specialist knowledge about trading conditions in all parts of the world. It requires a great deal of knowledge about risks in various parts of the world—risks which are always changing, and changing from month to month and week to week, and even from day to day. I think it would be true to say that the trading community, and, of course, particularly the exporting community, has been well served by the facilities given by the parent Measure and by the very sympathetic and understanding way in which the Department has dealt with their problems.
My information has always been that this Department dealing with the commercial community has avoided some of the normal failings of a bureaucracy, and has attempted to deal with immediate trading, commercial problems as they have arisen, in an understanding and sympathetic spirit, and very much as an insurance company, privately owned and


privately run, would have done. Therefore, as we have been invited on the Second Reading of this Bill to go a little wider than the scope of the Clauses, I think it would be right, in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Somerset, North, to put the other point of view, and to take this opportunity of paying a tribute—

Mr. Leather: I did that.

Mr. Fletcher: —of recognition and appreciation of the very considerable services which, as he said, this not overstaffed Department has given in this very specialised field.
I am very glad that the ambit of the work of the Department is being extended to enable it to deal with the particular conditions where a subsidiary company is either an exporter or importer or a go-between, because I quite agree that it is a very necessary extension. My only surprise is that the necessity for filling up this loophole did not become apparent before. I have no doubt that full use will be made of these provisions in the future, and I am very glad to welcome and support the Bill.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: I also should like to take this opportunity of supporting the Second Reading of This Bill, and of giving praise to the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), with his wide experience, and because of the tribute which he did pay to the Department, will agree with me that this Department has been doing an invaluable job of work for the country.
I should, however, like to make one point. He did comment on the delays that occurred, and contrasted them with commercial insurance operations. I am not quite sure what sort of case he had in mind, for it does seem inherent in the type of proposition that is sometimes put up to the Department that there must inevitably be some delay. Very complex proposals are put forward, and sometimes, as the work develops, the range of the type of assistance the Department is called upon to give is continually extended. I have heard of particular propositions that have been put up to the

Department which have sometimes involved a good deal of consideration, taking into account the market risks, and so on.
Generally speaking, I would strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Indeed, I go as far as to say that I think that the Export Credits Guarantee Department should be the exemplar of other Government Departments. It is in a fortunate position, I believe, in that it has continually found itself showing a handsome profit to the Treasury, and it is, therefore, less actively controlled and limited in its activities by the Treasury, and the type of Departmental freedom it has succeeded in achieving has added to its proficiency. Indeed, it has solved to a larger extent than other Departments, the problem of adapting Civil Service method and Civil Service outlook—and I am not using the terms in any condemnatory sense at all—to ordinary commercial activities. It has succeeded to a much greater extent than other Government Departments in adapting itself to giving a ready response to and a ready understanding of the problems of business men. I personally suggest that it would repay the Government to examine the way in which this Department works to see if they cannot learn a lesson for application in certain other fields.
The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) came in with his usual sniping. I should like to know what particular type of research department he has to provide him with the involved questions he thinks up on these occasions. I cannot entirely follow his reference to the sterling earnings of the Department. It seems to me that they are merely concerned—I may have misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I realise he was making only a brief reference to this matter—they are merely concerned in the end, in being paid in sterling. Their concern is balancing their account in this country. They are not concerned with foreign currencies; so long as they do get payment in sterling, that is all they are or should be concerned with.
I support the Second Reading, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will see that the Department is informed of the


high opinion this House has of its activities.

Mr. Leather: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to assure him, with reference to the question about delays and the reasons for them, that there is one commercial organisation which is exactly comparable, and I have had figures got out that show that the average delay in the case of the Department last year was six weeks, and that in the case of the one comparable commercial organisation it was five days. The reason for that, in our view, is entirely administrative and a shortage of staff.

Mr. Shackleton: Is that calculation based on a series of cases? Or is it an isolated one?

Mr. Leather: It is based on experience over 12 months.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am sure that the officials of the Department will be very pleased at the praise which has been poured on them today from all sides of the House. Personally, I am bound to say that I have heard it with very great pleasure, having been responsible many years ago for helping to nurse the child through its growing pains. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), and to find that here, at least, is one thing that he regards with approval that has emerged from the bad old Tory days.
I suggest to the hon. Member, without going any further, that he, perhaps, should consider in his quieter moments whether or not some of the improved results of this Department, as compared with those of more recent experiments of the Labour Government, are not due to the fact that this good work was started under a Tory Government, and that, therefore, the principles were, perhaps, better adapted to the despatch of business than those of some of the experiments which we have recently seen.

Mr. Collick: It has prospered under new management.

Mr. Hudson: We realise that it has done very good work, and no one is more pleased than we are on this side of the House.
There is one small point upon which I was not quite clear from what the President of the Board of Trade said in opening, and that is the extent to which this Bill makes alterations. It may be because I have been so long out of touch with this particular Department, but I was not clear whether the new guarantees extend to exports from parent companies from this country to its subsidiaries, or whether the subsidiaries are to be given a guarantee in respect of any trade with countries overseas irrespective of the country of origin. As the President of the Board of Trade knows, this was started in order to promote the export of goods from this country. Perhaps the Secretary for Overseas Trade would explain to what extent this guarantee applies merely to goods originating from this country, or whether it applies also to certain important visible export trade of subsidiaries between two countries overseas. Subject to that, we on this side welcome the Bill.

4.42 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): On behalf of the Department I acknowledge the kindly references made to the staff and the good work they do. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), merely carried on what is traditional in the Labour Party, and that is picking up anything that is good and improving on it. In that sense I think we have succeeded this afternoon by introducing this new Bill. Criticisms such as those made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), this afternoon—for some of which I must admit there is some little justification—might have been better made to the President of the Board of Trade or to myself a little earlier. If in future he would do that it would be most helpful. We find that other interested people make these comments and we are able to make adjustments accordingly.

Mr. Leather: I do not want to give a wrong impression. I have time and time again discussed with the hon. Gentleman's officials the kind of criticism
I have just made. I have been very careful not to go over their heads.

Mr. Bottomley: I accept that. Possibly it is as a result of those representations that officials have seen me from


time to time. If hon. Members would write and let the Minister know in addition it would be helpful. I say no more than that.
In connection with the staffing arrangements, the Comptroller-General, when appointed, saw me and made references to the staffing difficulties, and we were able to go to the Treasury and get adjustments made. If more are needed we shall not hesitate to look at that, though I am bound to point out that again on this occasion we find Members of the Opposition asking for an increase in the staffs of Government Departments. The hon. Member for Somerset, North, also said that in pressing on the dollar drive we might have missed something else, or not done it as efficiently as it had been done before. I must accept that, but I must also point out that the dollar drive was so urgent that it just had to be pressed on with. Since then we have been pushing along to make sure that the whole is covered with the maximum efficiency.
The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) asked whether the subsidiaries overseas had to be wholly owned. The answer is that the Bill says that these subsidiaries are to be controlled by the United Kingdom company, which in effect means that as long as there is a majority holding in the case of a United Kingdom company, it is covered in both instances.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that he is right on that? I am not a lawyer, but I have some experience of these questions. Is it not the fact that from a legal point of view control does not consist entirely in the shareholding. There is control through directors and directions given from this end. It is not entirely a matter of the shareholding.

Mr. Bottomley: That is so, but the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest asked about the shares and I was answering that particular question. I think the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) was not in the Chamber when that point was made.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I want to get this straight. It would be perfectly possible to have a company where the

English parent company had only a 35 per cent. shareholding, but because of the circumstances envisaged by my hon. Friend it would still qualify under this Bill.

Mr. Bottomley: The assurance I will give to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that, as long as we have effective control that kind of guarantee would be given. He also asked whether it would be possible to get an increase in the amount of £6 million for this kind of overseas trade. I can give the assurance that we can go above the £6 million; whatever we want in addition would come out of the amount of money voted by Parliament in order that this Department can work, but we cannot estimate what the amount would be. There has been unity on this Bill, and I think I have answered all the point put to me.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: What about the exports which I mentioned?

Mr. Bottomley: The Bill does not give the Department more power than it already possesses to cover goods not of United Kingdom origin, but, in accordance with assurances given by my right hon. Friend in debates on previous Acts, all requests for cover for foreign goods are screened first of all by the Board of Trade and then, if satisfactory, guarantees will be given.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.

EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees.)— [King's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide that any power which is or was conferred on the Board of Trade by the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, or by the Export Guarantees Acts, 1939 to 1948, to give guarantees to or for the benefit of a person shall be taken to extend and have extended to the giving to him of certain similar undertakings in relation to the business of any company controlled by him, and to the


giving of guarantees and undertakings to or for the benefit of any such company, it is expedient to authorise any increase (attributable to the making of such provision by the Act of the present Session) in the sums which under section three or four of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer.—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

GOLD COAST (NEWCONSTITUTION)

4.50 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Having the opportunity of the Adjournment at this early hour, I wish to say that my object is to call attention to an epoch-making event on the West Coast of Africa. History is being made tomorrow at Accra by the opening of the Gold Coast Assembly where, for the first time in the history of the British Empire, we shall see a majority of black Ministers elected to the Executive Council. No fewer than eight members of the Executive Council will be black African members, directly elected in the first place to the. Legislative Council by their fellow citizens. These elections were carried out in an exemplary manner.
I cannot begin in a better way than by quoting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies when, in opening the annual debate on the Colonial Estimates on 12th July last year, he said that the aim and purpose of United Kingdom colonial policy was:
to guide the Colonial Territories to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth, and, to that end, to assist them to the utmost of our capacity and resources to establish those economic and social conditions upon which alone self-government could be soundly based."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 1368.]
Since 1945, there has been intense political ferment on the West Coast of Africa. There has been great tension in respect both of the trade unions and the political parties and, to cap all, the newspapers have been irresponsible and sometimes scurrilous in feeding the flames of dissension, since there were genuine grievances. The upshot was continuous

and predominant agitation culminating in the disastrous outbreaks of 1948, when 29 persons were killed and 257 injured in five towns.
A change of Legislature after this was inevitable. The Native African Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Coussey, was set up. This talented Committee did an able job and most of its proposals were accepted by the Minister. In the autumn of last year, an intensive publicity campaign was carried on to educate the black people for the forthcoming elections which were held this month. "The Times" leader of 7th February said:
The General Election now proceeding on the Gold Coast is a bold, perhaps hazardous, experiment.
Be that as it may, the election was held under the most exemplary conditions and was in itself a lesson to democracy. The rural and primary elections were held to elect the district electorial colleges which, in their turn, elected some 33 Members of the Legislature. These delegates held palavers which were so well behaved and respectable as to be almost like local Labour Party gatherings in this country. The Nationalist Convention People's Party had a walk-over both in the rural and town elections. The popular vote was all on their side while their leader Kwame Nkrumah was still in gaol in Accra. A deputation met the Governor, Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, to discuss the question of the release of Kwame Nkrumah, for they said that without him they were "headless in the Chamber."
Now there is a new spirit abroad on the Gold Coast. I would merely add, because I am quoting second-hand, that this is due to the exemplary behaviour of the people at the elections and since. The release of Kwame Nkrumah made the victory complete and indisputable. Let me give the figures. In four town elections, the party vote was 58,866 by direct ballot and 5,500 for all other parties. No fewer than 34 non-C.P.P. candidates lost their £50 deposits.
Kwame Nkrumah stated his policy on 13th February when he said that he would accept office in the new Executive Council on certain conditions. He would give the Constitution a fair trial. He would give it a fair testing as a stepping stone to full self-government as a Dominion within the British Commonwealth. He said that if he could not


work the Constitution he would resign and go into opposition to the Government or to the party which took his place. I want to quote, in case there is any misapprehension, what Kwame Nkrumah actually said after his release from gaol, because I think that he is perhaps a somewhat maligned man. He said:
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am a friend of Britain. I desire for the Gold Coast Dominion status within the Commonwealth. I am a Marxian Socialist and undenominational Christian. The only places I know in Europe are London and Paris. I am no Communist and have never been one. I come out of jail and into the Assembly without the slightest feeling of bitterness to Britain. I stand for no racialism, no discrimination against any race or individual, but I am unalterably opposed to Imperialism in any form.
Therefore, the test of the constitution will be whether the Permanent Secretaries are prepared to co-operate with him and his fellow Ministers, and secondly—and this is fearfully important—the attitude of the Governor in the use of his reserved powers.
I suggest that there is now a much happier spirit on the West Coast of Africa and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies might suggest to His Majesty's Government that they employ a personage of high eminence to attend the formal ceremonial opening of the new Assembly on the Gold Coast. That may occur next month—I am not sure about the date—but I am informed that tomorrow there is to be an informal opening of the Assembly by the Governor himself. I recall that the Duke of Edinburgh went to Gibraltar, and I would suggest that some Minister of His Majesty's Government might go to the Gold Coast, or, failing that, someone like Lord Louis Mountbatten, who is well known to coloured peoples everywhere for his sympathy and understanding of their difficulties. The Assembly will be opened tomorrow by the Governor, Sir Richard Arden-Clarke. I understand that this is only an informal opening, but I should like the House, if it is at all possible, to send its good wishes to the new Assembly. Perhaps the Minister will consider this before he answers the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in his usual inimitable fashion, last week went round collecting signatures from Labour Members for a cable to be sent to Kwame Nkrumah.
Some of us signed that cablegram, but I wish that it had been possible for it to have been signed by all Members of the House, because such gestures as this are needed on behalf of this country if only to counter-balance the effects—I will add no adjectives—of such iniquitous speeches as that by Lord Hailey in Cape Town a short time ago, when he said that the British people, except for some Socialists and some old-fashioned Liberals, were not critical of the native policy of the Malan Government.
A Question was asked in the House about this speech, and the Prime Minister told us that Lord Hailey had spoken in a purely personal capacity. I am speaking tonight purely in the capacity of a back bencher when I say that the vast majority of the people in this country will disown such statements, and that we are not merely sympathetic but will do all we can to help the coloured peoples in Africa as they falteringly make their steps towards nationalism. If I may be allowed to be a little mischievous, I would point out that Lord Hailey did not mention the Tories as being in this category—perhaps he did not deem them worthy of mention.
As the black people of Africa are marching to nationhood, they must be made to feel that this nation, and particularly this Labour Government, means what it says and is only too anxious to guide and help them as they make their way, if only in a stumbling fashion, towards self-government. Let us, then, send to the people of the Gold Coast one of His Majesty's Ministers, or perhaps Lord Mountbatten, which would fire their imagination, and let him be accompanied by an all-party delegation as a further token of our esteem and good will.
This election has been termed one of the boldest episodes in the history of this old Empire of ours. Some people may compare Nkrumah to Bustamente, but I hope that Nkrumah may become for West Africa another Pandit Nehru. I am sure that we all wish him and his party God-speed in their great venture. Nkrumah can be a beacon to black people everywhere and the means of guiding the native peoples of this great Continent to a far better future.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I should like to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) or having raised this very important subject and to support the remarks he has made. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to convey to the people of the Gold Coast the best wishes of His Majesty's Government, and also the best wishes of the House, for their venture in self-government. As my hon. Friend has said, events on the Gold Coast are epoch-making. I am very glad that he referred to the recent remarks of Lord Hailey and has stressed that those views do not represent the views of the progressive people of this country.
The elections of the Gold Coast have been successfully held. It was reported in "The Times," which has already been referred to, that they would be of a hazardous nature. Examination of the conduct of the people in this connection has shown that it has been exemplary. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will agree that the elections have been much better conducted than those in other parts of the world where we have a much longer tradition of self-government. I am referring to Northern Ireland. I only wish that the Northern Ireland Tories would conduct themselves as well as these people have done at their elections.
All of us wish the people on the Gold Coast success in their new venture. It has been the policy of the Government, since 1945, deliberately to follow a policy of trying to give the peoples of the Colonial Empire an opportunity to march forward towards self-government.
It is interesting to read the speeches of members of the National Convention People's Party whose leader was imprisoned. Their leader, Kwame Nkrumah, since his success in the election, has shown no signs of bitterness. He made a remarkable speech in which, despite the past, he showed that he wished to be friendly with our country. He made some important remarks on future colonial policy, with which Members will agree, saying that Africa needs technicians, engineers, geologists and agriculturists, and not the lawyers and schoolmasters they have been having in the past—men who can really develop the economic life of the country.
That has always been the policy of the Government since 1945. We have always tried to develop the resources of the Colonial Empire so that a better atmosphere could be created for proper political understanding. We all agree that bad economics make bad politics.
It has been the task of the Government in the field of colonial development since 1945 to develop the resources of the Empire and to give the people opportunities to conquer poverty and insecurity_ Parallel with that there has been the progress towards self-government. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make the gesture that has been asked for. I hope it will be possible for the House to wish the new Assembly well, and that we shall be able to send a distinguished representative on a formal occasion to complete the good wishes sent on behalf of the British people.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Braine: I was somewhat disappointed to find that the subject of this debate had been changed. It was to have been on Lord Hailey's speech and any speech from such an eminent authority on African affairs as Lord Hailey is of great interest. I was wondering what sort of comment the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) would make upon the speech he had in mind. I am not accusing the hon. Member of discourtesy, but I think that he might have given the House some explanation of why the subject for this debate was changed so hurriedly.

Mr. J. Johnson: There is nothing sinister behind this. The Minister is in South Africa, the Under-Secretary is in the House of Lords, and it seemed to me much more appropriate that we should defer the subject originally selected, until the return of the Minister concerned.

Mr. Braine: I am not satisfied, and I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side of the. House are equally dissatisfied. After all, in the course of his speech the hon. Member referred to the speech of Lord Hailey in South Africa as "iniquitous." If it earned that description from the hon. Member, one would have thought that it was of sufficient importance for him to continue with this subject for debate tonight. On the contrary, without giving the House anyexplanation, the subject was changed.

Mr. Peart: I think the hon. Member is doing my colleague an injustice. Adjournment time belongs to Private Members and, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) could raise any subject he wished. I do not think there has been any complaint. Certainly I have not heard any hon. Member on the other side complain about what another hon. Member has brought up on an Adjournment. Surely it is a matter between himself and the Minister.

Mr. Braine: Surely the hon. Member for Rugby owes some duty to this House. All hon. Members are informed in due time of the subject of Adjournment debates. Here, suddenly, without any warning and without any explanation the subject was changed. However, it may be that the hon. Member, like myself, is unaccustomed to the practices of this honourable House, and that had he thought about this in advance he would have afforded us some explanation at the outset of his speech. Having said that, and having listened to the hon. Member for Rugby, I suggest that it would have been better if he had raised this subject without the implication which seems to run through so many speeches from hon. Members opposite—the implication that we on this side are not really interested in the constitutional advance of Colonial peoples, and that ony those on the opposite side of the House are interested in these matters.
It was Edmund Burke, I think speaking in connection with India, who first laid down the principle that the welfare of the governed was the first duty of the governors. Ever since that day the idea of trusteeship has laid hold of successive British Governments. What has happened in the Gold Coast, what is happening in the West Indies, what is happening throughout the dependent Empire is the result of an evolutionary process towards the dependent peoples managing their own affairs which started a long time before the Labour Party was even thought of. Therefore, it would have been better on this occasion, when we are considering whether or not some gesture should be made to the new Gold Coast government, if such an impression had not been left on the House by the hon. Member for Rugby.
I cannot understand why the hon. Member should have to suggest that a message should go from this House. I speak with-

out any knowledge of what has happened previously, but this, after all, is the Mother of Parliaments. The great gift which the British people have given to the world is this unique method of government. I should have thought it was almost automatic that some sort of message should be sent to new young Parliaments in the Commonwealth when they come into being.
Precisely because I object to the way in which the hon. Member for Rugby made his observations, I want to say that we on this side of the House wish the new experiment, hazardous as it may be, all success. Certainly a new chapter has opened in the history of the African peoples and upon the success of this experiment a great deal will depend. It is rather like the ripples going out from the middle of a pond after a stone has been dropped into it. What happens in the Gold Coast in the next year or so will affect the whole Colonial Empire. Of that I have not the slightest doubt. Therefore, all of us in this House extend from the bottom of our hearts our very best wishes for the success of this new constitutional advance in the Gold Coast.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Bing: However little one may have agreed with what the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) said in his opening remarks, the whole House can at least agree with what he said in his concluding sentences. Therefore, I cannot see how the hon. Member can possibly object to a change of subject. This is the eve of the first meeting of the first Parliament of Africans for Africans. It would have been inappropriate if the House had not chosen this opportunity to discuss it, rather than to discuss what is a more domestic affair, the remarks of one or other Minister.
Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consider whether it would not be possible or appropriate that we should put on the Order Paper for tomorrow a formal message of goodwill so that there might be a message sent by Mr. Speaker to the Assembly of the Gold Coast when it meets for the first time tomorrow. I do not think it would be right if we were to leave this subject —and I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me—without paying a small tribute to the work of my right hon.
Friend's predecessor, Mr. Creech Jones, to whom a great deal of this constitutional development is due.
As the hon. Member for Billericay said, we shall be largely judged in Africa by what happens in the Gold Coast. And by one of those curious factors of history the Gold Coast, of all parts of Africa, is the most international. It was on the Gold Coast that the Portuguese, the Danes, even the Prussians, when they were still called the Brandenburghers, had ports. There were Swedish ports, and the Gold Coast is one of the few places where the Swiss maintain a consul because of the number of Swiss engaged in trading there. As well as that, from the Near East and so on there are many Lebanese, Indian, and other traders making up the international community, so that the Gold Coast is known generally in the world.
But there is more to it than that, because between ourselves and the Gold Coast there has been perhaps the longest and most intimate connection between this country and the really African civilisation. Even at the end of the 18th century the first African ever to be ordained into the English Church was ordained in the Gold Coast and became a missionary there. All through the 19th century a number of leading Africans were co-operating and working with the administration in the Gold Coast. Here is an area where there is a high percentage of literacy, probably as high as 10 per cent., as compared with the much lower percentage in Nigeria; here is an area where we have a chance to see how this constitutional experiment will work out.
Those of us who have studied the Constitution see in it one or two admirable features and one or two possible difficulties. I know that hon. Members on this side of the House will commend the provision by which only a simple majority is required to elect a Government, but apparently a two-thirds majority is needed to turn it out. Whether or not such a provision would work effectively I am not quite certain, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will deal in a little more detail with what may be some of the constitutional difficulties in the administration of the Gold Coast Constitution.
As I understand it, the Executive Council is composed of 11 members of whom

three, the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Financial Secretary, are members ex officio. As I understand it, they are irremovable, but they are bound to follow the policy of the Executive Council as a whole, which is determined by a majority of that Council, of whom eight are members responsible to the Assembly. When this system of irremovable members was tried in the Canadian Constitution at one time, and at a later stage in the Malta Constitution, it gave rise to a great many difficulties, and to the permanent members attempting to pursue an independent policy quite apart from that of the Executive Council as a whole.
It is necessary that we should emphasise that we desire to see this Constitution a real Constitution and not in any sense a sham, pretending that there is democracy when it does not exist. I believe that the Constitution can be made to work, but obviously this is one of the difficulties which may have to be faced—the position of the irremovable and, in a sense, irresponsible permanent members. That seems to be the crucial constitutional difficulty which may arise.
Before we pass to discuss the policies of the political parties of the Gold Coast I should like to say one word of congratulation to the Governor of the Gold Coast who, by his recent handling of these events, has shown himself to be a statesman of a high order. He ought to know that he has behind him the support of Members in all parts of the House. It is quite clear that if there is to be a responsible Government, it will be the Government of the Convention of People's Party, Mr. Nkrumah's party. It is important that we should realise the sort of difficulty and the sort of policy to which the C.P.P. look forward.
They talk very often of Dominion status now, but there is the reality, which is the determination of many people that Africans, particularly on the Gold Coast, should command their own future. I think it would be agreed by hon. Members that Mr. Nkrumah's party, certainly those members of it to whom I have talked of these problems on the Gold Coast, recognise two very important things. The first is the importance of the Gold Coast remaining within the sterling


area. The second is the essential importance of the Gold Coast having a planned economy, including the maintenance of marketing boards, bulk buying and bulk selling. What they object to is the intrusion in Africa of the extraterritorial companies, whose profits go outside Africa. This is the difficulty which Africa is up against, that the profits of those enterprises are not available for development within the area in which the profits were laid.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire): That may or may not be true, but is it not the fact that private enterprise in West Africa is making profits while Government enterprise in East Africa is losing millions of money?

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman and I have rather a different balance sheet. We approach this thing in a different way. We on this side think that a nationalised undertaking which is well placed in a colonial area is a gain and not a loss. On whatever side the hon. Member may write his figures, we think that profits taken from a country and exported to another country are a loss to that country.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the private companies have conferred no benefits upon the Gold Coast at all?

Mr. Bing: I am not suggesting so at all. The United Trading Company was originally a missionary concern. It was an organisation of Swiss missionaries and it conferred great benefits upon the area by way of education and medical services and the like. In the days of the early development the extra-territorial companies did perform a very useful service, but we must ask ourselves now whether those great monopolies, dominated as they are by Lever Bros., are working in the best interests of the African people.
I should like to make one other point. Both the Government of the Gold Coast and the Government of Nigeria can be much complimented upon their elimination of racialism, or any form of colour discrimination. I think there still exist some traces of it in the Gold Coast. There is a European Club to which it is not permissible to bring an African guest. It seems that the Europeans have much

less good manners than the Africans, for there exists also an African Club where there is no objection to an African bringing a European guest. There is no reason why there should not be Irish clubs, Scottish clubs or any other sort of club, limited to members of one race or one particular interest, but it is very important that in official matters there should not be purely pin-pricking things of this sort.

Mr. Braine: Would the hon. Member permit me to point out that one of the earliest decisions taken by Mr. Nkrumah and his friends since the election, no doubt with the best intentions in the world, is not to maintain any private social contacts with the European officials with whom they are to work?

Mr. Bing: That is exactly one of the difficulties. It shows the importance of things which might otherwise seem to be quite trivial. It is absolutely essential that we should get away from all these very difficult ideas and difficult conceptions, for example the expatriation allowance by which the African staff and the European staff are treated on different terms. It is such things which present difficulties in the way of securing an even social life between the Europeans and the Africans. I think I shall be backed by hon. Members who have had experience in Nigeria and the Gold Coast in saying that the plan has been more successfully achieved in Nigeria than in the Gold Coast.
I am sure that we all welcome most sincerely this experiment and that from the whole House the warmest feelings go out to the people of Africa. We express the greatest hopes for the constitutional success of their great experiment.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Alport: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) introduced in the last part of his remarks the question of racialism. I should have thought that this was not the occasion to do that, and that it would have been better to follow the example of Mr. Nkrumah, who showed rather more responsibility.
I have listened with the greatest interest to the speeches which have been made. I admit that I came here expecting to hear a debate on certain statements made


by Lord Hailey. The speeches that have been made in this Adjournment debate have something very much in common. It is only about 40 years ago that hon. Members belonging to the Government party and those belonging to the party which sits below the Gangway were welcoming the constitutional experiment—a very generous Liberal experiment it was —for the new constitution of South Africa. Yet today, 40 years afterwards, which is not so long over the arches of history, they are beginning to look upon that experiment with a certain amount of distaste. I would remind—

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman has accused us on this side of the House of introducing racialism. Surely everyone in the House is agreed that it is absolutely pernicious to deprive people, because of their colour, of voting or taking part in their own affairs, and that is why there is considerable criticism of South Africa.

Mr. Alport: That has been clear to me for some time. I was saying, before the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me, that 40 years afterwards, they are looking upon the results of their constitutional experiments with a great deal of distaste. Let us not merely congratulate and wish God-speed to a new experiment in Africa, but let us also do so with a certain amount of responsibility on our part, realising that by setting up a Constitution such as has been set up in the Gold Coast we are not necessarily ensuring its success. After all, one of the reasons the South African Government are at the present moment the object of such considerable criticism is that they are reputed to have shown—rightly or wrongly, I do not know—certain of the tendencies which were attributed to Fascism and dictatorship in the past.
It is easy for those of us who have followed the experiment in the Gold Coast and the statements which, prior to the election, were made by Mr. Nkrumah and the Convention People's Party to see traces—I would say a threat, if only a small one—of similar developments there should this experiment not prove successful in the eyes of those who are supposed to be carrying it out. There is a danger that we shall be able to look forward in this new experiment in African self-government towards a strengthening, not of the democratic forces but of those

forces which are opposed to everything for which we stand and everything we have tried to set up in Africa over the years. It was because we regarded that experiment as a gamble, and a very great gamble, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House asked the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary and his advisers to be very careful how quickly they tried to advance so-called constitutional reform in Africa.
By all means let us wish well to this experiment in African self-government, but let us not allow our prejudices—there were many examples of prejudices, particularly in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch—to run away with our judgment. We should remember that we are still responsible for the 'welfare, not only of a political party or of politicians in Africa or anywhere else but of the great mass of people to whom politics, in those countries at any rate, mean very little indeed.
I want to refer to one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). He was to have raised on the Adjournment the subject of Lord Hailey's speech, and it is worth making one point on that—

Mr. J. Johnson: I have already said why I changed the subject that I selected for the Adjournment. I should like to add that last Friday I went to the Speaker's Office and got permission to change it, and I should have thought that at least by today, hon. Members would have known what the title of the Adjournment debate was. Hon. Members on this side of the House did. It amazes me to find hon. Members coming into the Chamber saying that they did not know what the debate was about.

Mr. Alport: I am not chiding the hon. Member for changing the title, but am merely explaining why I am introducing this point into my speech, which so far has been concerned primarily with political problems on the Gold Coast. Before hon. Members opposite go too far in criticising Lord Hailey or those African experts—they are experts who have spent many years of their lives in Africa—for the ideas that they put forward, they should remember that before the Select Committee in 1930 Miss Perham and Lord Lugard both gave as their view that in a plural society, some form of separation


policy was advisable if all races were to reach their eventual goals. Therefore, there is a possibility, which I think may have confused hon. Members opposite, that when an expert like Lord Hailey is talking in favour of a racial separate policy, he is talking in terms of that advice which, as hon. Members will agree, was given by liberal thinkers on the subject 20 years ago, rather than in terms of the application of the policy by the Malan Government at the present time, which is quite a different matter.
My reason for introducing that point is—I hope hon. Members opposite will bear with me in this—that I can see many dangers arising from loose and prejudiced thinking and speaking on the whole question of Africa and the racialism within it, probably from all political parties but certainly from the party opposite. If we could ensure that, before the criticisms were made, a deeper study of what is a most intricate and difficult problem was made by all of us, I am sure we should avoid creating much of the trouble which will in the end lead to great distress here and overseas. Finally, whereas we on this side of the House send our good wishes for this experiment, we should not accompany those good wishes by sending a member of the present Administration.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: If the debate has done nothing else, it has gone a long way to refute statements made by Lord Hailey in Cape Town the other day suggesting that the people in Britain were not very interested in African racial problems. The House, the country and the Commonwealth—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As this is no longer a debate on Lord Hailey's statement, as the noble Lord, as far as I know, is not in England at the moment, as we have not had a full report of what he said, and as these matters are capable of the most dangerous misrepresentation, would the hon. Gentleman, in fairness, confine the debate to the new subject chosen by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson)?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has been here throughout the whole of the debate—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I came as soon as possible.

Mr. Fletcher: I have no doubt that it was not his fault that he was occupied elsewhere when the debate began, but as I have been here the whole time perhaps I might inform him that the debate has taken a very curious course. It has covered both the subjects selected by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), namely the remarks of Lord Hailey in Cape Town, and the situation produced by the recent elections in the Gold Coast. In view of the speeches which have been made in the debate, in view of the references which have been made on both sides of the Chamber not only to the Gold Coast situation but to Lord Hailey and the situation in South Africa, in view of the abundant time which, most fortunately, we have this evening to discuss these very important matters, and as the Minister is here to reply—I have no doubt that he was prepared to reply to a full debate on all matters—I hope I shall not be ruled out of order if I try to follow some of the subjects which have been discussed by speaker after speaker on both sides of the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way to me again. The Minister is not here. Lord Hailey's observations were directed to matters that fall within the province of the Department of Commonwealth Relations and not of the Colonal Office. We have the pleasure of the presence of the Colonial Secretary. The hon. Member for Rugby himself said that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is in Africa. The Minister is not here. Therefore, would it not be better to wait until he is?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Perhaps I might intervene with advantage at this point. This question of the statement alleged to have been made by Lord Hailey in South Africa was raised in the form of a Question on Thursday, 8th February, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I want to make it perfectly clear that if this matter is raised again tonight—that is not a question for me, but for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the Members of the House—all I could do in reply would be to refer hon. Members to the answer given last week by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the House is very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has put the matter entirely in its right perspective. Obviously, if this debate were limited to the question of remarks made by Lord Hailey we should not have the Colonial Secretary here to reply to the debate. Although I think that that subject is relevant to the debate as it has been conducted up to the present, chief interest lies in the Gold Coast election; but I am sure that it will be agreed that it would be quite wrong to rule out of order any reference to the situation in South Africa. This is a subject of profound importance at present, not only in the Gold Coast and in this country but in South Africa, and while I want to say a word or two in a moment in support of the very useful and constructive suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, I also want to remind the House of the very important repercussion which the Gold Coast elections have had and are likely to have in South Africa. That is why it is very relevant to this whole matter to refer to Lord Hailey's remarks.
I have here yesterday's issue of the "Sunday Times" and the heading on one of the principal articles in that number is this: "South Africa's concern over Gold Coast vote." I propose in a moment to trouble the House with one or two quotations made by the South African correspondent of the "Sunday Times" and also to indicate to the House the effect which these developments in the Gold Coast have had on other African Colonies.
I come back to my original remark, that if this debate has done nothing else it has, at any rate, refuted the suggestion which Lord Hailey made in Cape Town, only a few days ago, that the British public were very little interested in African affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people of this country at this moment, and, indeed, at all times, are very concerned about African affairs. I think we can congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby for having had the luck to select an evening for his Adjournment debate when there is plenty of time to discuss the matter; and, secondly, to congratulate him on

having the forethought to widen the subject of this debate in order to deal with this subject generally.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: To change it.

Mr. Fletcher: Or to change it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a different subject.

Mr. Fletcher: With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), supported to some extent by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), I hope it will not be assumed that no one has the right to change the subject once he has obtained Mr. Speaker's permission to do so. Everybody on this side of the House knew perfectly well that we were to have an opportunity of talking about the Gold Coast.

Mr. Braine: We do not question the right of any hon. Member, least of all the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), to change the subject for the Adjournment debate. The point that I was endeavouring to make was that both the first subject for the Adjournment and the subject chosen now are of such importance that hon. Members should have been properly apprised of the change. Speaking for myself, I was not given that information, nor do I think were hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Fletcher: I came to the House this afternoon, as did everybody else on this side, knowing perfectly well that as soon as the Adjournment was reached—and we all knew that it would be reached early—there would be a debate on the Gold Coast. I am not responsible for the way in which Members of the party opposite organise their affairs, nor do I know whether they know what the subject is going to be before they come down. I can well believe that the majority of Members opposite have not the faintest idea of what we are to debate, but never before have I heard such a blatant confession by Members of the House that they come here without informing themselves of what is to be the subject for debate. That, it seems to me, is a confession not only of the greatest incompetence, but of the greatest lack of interest in our Parliamentary affairs.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member is getting very excited about very little indeed. I am sure that it would have been the wish of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that both sides of the House should have an opportunity of taking part in this Adjournment debate, and, if necessary, as indeed has been the case, of joining with him in the good wishes he wished to send. For some reason the change in the subject was not conveyed to Members on this side of the House.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is now making a criticism and a charge against my hon. Friend, implying that to some extent he was at fault in not notifying the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).

Mr. Bing: Perhaps my hon. Friend might emphasise to the hon. Gentleman opposite that the subject we are discussing was, in fact, exhibited on the notice board, which is put up at the request of Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I think we can safely leave this issue.

Mr. E. Fletcher: No one would be happier to leave the whole matter there, but I thought it necessary to answer the criticism made of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby.
I was about to say that I personally wish to associate myself with the proposal made by my hon. Friend that the House should take whatever steps are open to it to send some expression of cordiality and good will to the new Legislature in the Gold Coast, which is embarking on its career tomorrow. I do not know the precise form in which it would be possible for us to send such a message. A suggestion was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) that a notice might appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. If that is possible under the rules of the House, I hope that it will be done. Virtually, we have achieved our object by the debate itself, in letting the Legislature, the Executive Council and the people of the Gold Coast know with what sympathy and interest we are watching the experiment which starts tomorrow and how much we hope that that experiment will prosper.

Mr. J. Johnson: Would my right hon. Friend allow me to inform the House that, whatever hon. Members opposite may or may not know about this subject,

at least the newspapers in the Gold Coast this evening will be carrying some of tonight's Adjournment debate?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not intend, at this early hour, to keep hon. Members very long—

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I gave way only to allow my hon. Friend to make his intervention.
This experiment which is starting tomorrow is one in which we on these benches have taken a long and continued interest—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: So have we.

Mr. E. Fletcher: It arises from the Report by Mr. Aiken Watson, K.C., who, with his associates, went out to make an inquiry after the disturbances in 1948. That Report, which was approved by the House, made certain recommendations for a new Constitution. This is not the time to comment on the details of the Constitution. The House has had abundant experience in the framing of Constitutions of one kind or another in various parts of the Commonwealth. As my hon. Friend did, I also should like to pay a tribute both to the present Colonial Secretary and to his predecessor, Mr. Creech Jones, for the way in which during the last few years the problems of the Gold Coast have been handled. It is particularly gratifying to find this new Legislature and new Executive Council in which, for the first time, the majority are coloured people, responsible to their own Legislature. We all hope that the experiment will have a long life and much success.
I promised to say a word about the repercussions which the Gold Coast elections are having in other parts of the Commonwealth. In a sense they are even more important, because they cover a larger sphere and may affect our relations with another branch—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must remind the hon. Member that Mr. Speaker deprecates the introduction into an Adjournment debate of a subject other than that of which notice has been given, especially in the absence of the responsible Minister; and that secondly, if, as I gather, the hon. Member is about to refer to one of the Dominions, then our Government, of course, has no responsibility in regard thereto.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. As I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that remarks have been made from the other side which should be replied to, about the whole policy of Malan in South Africa. Those same people are now cheering your Ruling that no one should be allowed to reply to them. Surely, the effect in Africa is vital. I submit, Sir, that when on a long Adjournment debate we have the good fortune to have the Colonial Secretary present, and when many of us have been waiting a long time to make observations on colonial affairs, there should not on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House be too close a limitation on the ambit of the original discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fully agree with the hon. Member, and I have endeavoured to give latitude to both sides of the House, but if detailed remarks are to be made about these matters—matters for which another Government is responsible—then, clearly, those remarks are not in order.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I certainly, as always, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would wish to bow to your ruling and, with great respect, observe your remark that one ought not to say anything which entrenches upon the domestic concerns of the Union of South Africa.
I ought to have said that the elections in the Gold Coast will have their repercussions, not only on the Union of South Africa, but on the whole continent of Africa, for large parts of which we, of course, are still responsible. They will also have their repercussions upon the very troublesome questions of the Protectorate of South-West Africa, for which we are still responsible, and which may, but I hope will not, lead to friction—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is most inaccurate. We are not responsible for the Protectorate of South-West Africa. I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the three High Commission territories in Africa, for which we are responsible. I think that the Minister responsible for those territories is at present in those parts of Africa, and this is another reason why we feel that we ought not to discuss them tonight.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I intended to say, the three

High Commission territories in Africa, for which we are responsible.
I shall content myself with saying that in considering our responsibilities for those High Commission territories, and in considering our relations with the Union of South Africa, which are most important not only to South Africa and to this country, but to all parts of the Common wealth, I have no doubt that the appropriate significance will be given to the recent elections in the Gold Coast, which have been the immediate occasion of this Adjournment debate.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I yield to nobody in my good wishes to the Gold Coast, in which I have spent some enjoyable weeks, and we on this side wish every success to the new Government and to the new Assembly in the Gold Coast, the foundations of which were laid by Mr. Oliver Stanley, whose death a few weeks ago we so much lament. The reason why I rise now, however, is to comment upon something which was said by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who suggested that the profits made by British capital in the Gold Coast ought to be left there.
That suggestion is unreasonable and not at all in the interests of the people of the Gold Coast. Tens of millions of British capital have been invested in the Gold Coast, in mining, in timber, and in industry. Obviously, that capital would never have been invested if no dividends could be paid to the people who put up that money. By all means encourage such local capital as there is to invest in local industry, but no greater injury could be done to the Gold Coast than to say that no more profits from British capital should be remitted home. There is not the slightest doubt that the British money that has been poured out in the Gold Coast has raised the standard of living of its whole people. The new Government would not, I think, be so foolish as the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch in suggesting that no more dividends should be remitted to England. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and the capitalist is worthy of his dividend.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to say only a few words about the speech to which we have just listened. I urge my right hon. Friend, in view of


some of the remarks made tonight, that one of the most useful things he could do for the whole of Africa would be to have an independent inquiry into the operation of some of the mining companies and as to whether they are really raising the standard of living; into the figures, which have been publicised so many times, which show the gross disparity between black and white employees regarding wages—a disparity that is quite appalling—and into the fantastically high proportion of the gross takings of those companies which comes back here in the form of profits. In my view, nothing has done more harm to our relations in Africa than the operation of these companies, some of whose figures have been publicised. It might be very useful if my right hon. Friend would consider examining their operations with a view to instituting an inquiry into their future.

Mr. Angus Maude: When dealing with this question I hope the hon. Gentleman will not forget that His Majesty's Government have been doing precisely the same thing in the case of cocoa and other projects, in which there is just as much discontent, if not more.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is perfectly right, and I entirely agree with him. I think that His Majesty's Government have behaved scandalously about cocoa, and on any occasion upon which the hon. Gentleman cares to raise the question I shall be very happy to support him.

Mr. Keeling: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been in the Gold Coast? Whether he has or has not, is he aware that the quarters, food, medical attention and living conditions of the African employees of the British mining companies there are far superior to anything provided anywhere else in the Gold Coast, even by the Government themselves?

Mr. Hale: I have not been to the Gold Coast. I have not even been to Africa, except en route to Australia at my own expense. The reason is that I am a bad boy and have never been invited to participate in any official delegation which has gone there, and if I am a Member of Parliament for another 25 years it is very unlikely that I shall be. But I

believe, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said, that we ought to familiarise ourselves with all these subjects, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will always make every effort to do so, as I do. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has visited there many times in the last year or two. [HON. MEMBERS: "A good boy."] He is not a good boy at all. At least he can congratulate himself that certain persons who voted in these elections would not have been there to vote but for his efforts as an advocate in the Gold Coast. Certainly he has made a very considerable study of conditions there.
I want to associate myself with all the hopes that have been expressed by previous speakers. At the outset of this great experiment we all wish it well. We must view it not without a little anxiety too, for every new experiment is fraught with difficulty in its earlier years. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) again misquoted John Bright. This House is not the Mother of Parliaments, and never has been. Britain is the Mother of Parliaments, and her democratic example has produced so many systems that she has earned that title. But this House has no right to call itself a very old legislative assembly at all; there are many much olden We have tried to evolve new forms of democracy to meet new circumstances.
With regard to the interjection of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, or is it South Bedfordshire?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mid-Beds.

Mr. Hale: That sounds a somewhat uncomfortable situation. He said quite fairly that we each have our different balance sheets. He was referring to it in the course of one of those interjections which widen the debate. We have different balance sheets, and in connection with the Gold Coast, Africa and depressed territories all over the world it is fundamental to consider this question. I know that people hold different views, and I am very glad to see the work that the new Governor has done. I believe that since he has been there matters have greatly improved. I am glad also to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Mr. Creech Jones, and to his predecessor, the former right hon. Member for Bristol, West, Mr. Oliver Stanley,


whose loss we all deplore, not only as a great parliamentarian but as a great gentleman and one who, over a period, gave very distinguished service at the Colonial Office.
The balance sheet here is not bound up with the question of whether or not a profit is made. The balance sheet is that in the world every year 25 million people die unnecessarily. It is no use hon. Members opposite continuing to say, "We have always taken a great interest in this matter and are always animated by the best of motives," in face of this appalling figure. Today 200,000 children were born, of whom about 120.000 are coloured, of whom two-thirds are doomed to premature death due to malnutrition and disease, to intestinal disorders, without education, without chance, without hope.

Sir Peter Macdonald: The hon. Member is taking a very gloomy view.

Mr. Hale: I am giving a precise statistical view of the world in which we live, and which the hon. Gentleman played a great part in bringing about.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are dealing with the Gold Coast, and does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the annual report on the Gold Coast shows from year to year the wonderful results of the disinterested service that has been given by British people over the last century?

Mr. Hale: No one doubts that there have been great experiments, which, however, offset only a small portion of the population, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Nuffield Survey on Nigeria, which gives some really recent information about the standard of living. I understand that in Nigeria the figure for pay is about £5 a year for peasants. Parts of the Gold Coast are not much better. It is only around Accra and in the commercial centres that there is a higher standard of living.

Mr. Keeling: Rubbish.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member says "rubbish." I have no doubt he wishes to lull himself into a sense of unconsciousness. This is the fundamental problem of the world, and the effort we are talking about tonight is one which only begins to meet the problem. I know it is a very

small matter. It may have been a matter of very great difficulty to my right hon. Friend and from his point of view it is a substantial achievement in relation to the Gold Coast. However, it still does not attempt to touch the problem, and to say "rubbish" while our comrades all over the world are dying is really quite unnecessary. The hon. Member smiles. In India at the moment the rice ration is down to nine ounces a day—

Mr. Keeling: I am smiling because I think that if the people in the Gold Coast heard the hon. Gentleman they would be smiling. I have been in the Gold Coast, and I know that the people of the Gold Coast are the jolliest and happiest people in Africa.

Mr. Hale: I do not know how far in the hon. Gentleman went. Perhaps he went on one of these trips on which he attended quite a lot of receptions.

Sir P. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman has never been there at all.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman is now making a very substantial contribution to our Parliamentary proceedings and history. We have just spent two days talking about Russia and the whole of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—their policy, their army, their submarines, their navy and so on; all by people who have never been there, and no one objected to that last Wednesday and Thursday, although I still object to some of the observations made. We in this House are responsible for these territories. We are responsible for administering them. There was a time when the Tories ruled, when these territories were represented by a constituency in Kent. We have a mass of information coming out for those who want to study it and to try to assimilate the facts. I wish more did so, for with that statistical information we can make better contributions here.
The whole object of this debate tonight is to welcome the experiment in democracy which is now being made in the Gold Coast. Although it is not perhaps as extensive an experiment as we would like, it is a substantial contribution. It is something new. They will now have a form of representation. Although I have never been to the Gold Coast the people of the Gold Coast have heard of me, because until my hon. Friend


the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) came into the House in 1950, I suspect that I probably had the largest post bag from Africa of any back bench Member in this House. I therefore make no apology for making these comments.
The subject which my hon. Friend has raised in miniature tonight is one of the fundamental problems of the world. It is a fundamental problem in more ways than one, for it is a matter concerning our future too. Some years ago we were warned by Lord Boyd Orr that unless we doubled the food production of the world by 1965 many millions of people would be faced with starvation all over the world, not least in Africa. Since then very little has been done to deal with this problem. Indeed, we see the wastage of war in the rice fields of the Far East contributing greatly to the burdens and sufferings of mankind. I was greatly encouraged some months ago by an observation of one of my right hon. Friends in the course of an Adjournment debate, when he said that His Majesty's Government were hoping to plan on the desired lines to face the vital problem of Africa, which still remains to be faced.
I do not wish to go too far outside the ambit of this Debate, but I say seriously that all Members who have not seen a book which was published last week, called "Into the Desert," by Mr. Ritchie Calder, should do so. It recalls the work he has been doing on behalf of U.N.E.S.C.O., and it is a challenge to the ingenuity of this House. He was dealing much more with the wide desert areas to the north of Africa, and with the whole vast problem of that third of the world's land surface which is wholly undeveloped —either desert or scrub or impenetrable forest, as so much of the hinterland of the Gold Coast is. He instanced vast areas like Cyrenaica with a population of one person per square mile. He shows what has been done in the way of reclamation. A few days ago I had the opportunity of discussing this project with Mr. Roben, the leader of the French Peasants Organisation, who has had great experience of that development in Morocco and who was keenly interested.
We are speaking on the Adjournment, and I do not want to abuse that privilege, but it seems relevant to consider what

the economic implications of what is taking place in the Gold Coast might very well be—

Mr. Alport: Does not the hon. Member think that the economic implications might well be the drying up of overseas investment in the Gold Coast, and, therefore, the opportunities for the development of the resources and food supplies of the Gold Coast becoming more remote?

Mr. Hale: I am very glad that the hon. Member has returned. He made his speech some time ago and left the House. The whole tenor of his speech was "Orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is your doxy." If he referred to any institutions of which he approved, he was speaking in a simple spirit of humble patriotism and decency; if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), criticised any such institution he was a mass of prejudice and was using his inherent prejudices to attack the bulwarks of the Empire. That is an argument with which we are familiar, and no doubt it goes down quite well in some of the remote villages around Colchester. I am sorry to hear it once more in this House. I am sorry that I have been drawn, as a result of interjections, away from the limited scope of what I had intended to say. I rose to express wholehearted support of this the new experiment—

Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. Member realise that the speech he has just been making is the same speech as that which the Minister of Food made in Portsmouth last week to justify the shortage of food in this country—that the reason why we could not feed whites and blacks was the reason why we could not get food?

Mr. Hale: I cannot explain it by telepathy. I have only just delivered my speech, and I have not read the speech of the Minister of Food. It is not unlikely, however, that two people approaching world affairs from a humanitarian and Socialist point of view should come to the same conclusions. The speech is not really mine nor is it the speech of the Minister of Food. It was made by President Truman in the Fourth Point of his Inaugural Address. It was really made at Bethlehem as recorded in the 79th Verse of the First Chapter of St. Luke.
It is a question of bringing light to them that dwell in darkness and in the shadow of death and of guiding our feet into the way of peace. It applies in this matter as in matters of world importance. The time has come when some of us should realise it and try to co-operate a little more in an endeavour to bring it to pass.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) came into the House, as I did, a little late, at the time when the subject for debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House was being changed. I admit that I am not certain what are the exact terms of the subject at this moment.

Mr. Bing: We have had all this threshed out at great length. The subject of this Adjournment debate is that which is exhibited on the screen.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I listened to the hon. and learned Member speaking for 20 minutes and could not follow what he was changing. I now know where I am.
If the hon. and learned Member had seen the face of the Secretary of State for the Colonies he might have realised that some of the remarks which he obviously intended to be critical of those on this side of the House and of the past which, in his estimation, was always bad, reflected to a certain extent on what has been happening in the last six years. I agree with much of what he said as to the importance in West Africa, and in the Gold Coast in particular, of seeing that when an advance, as we wish to see advance, is made in local self-government, and in the management by the people there of their own affairs, it does not lead to economic damage to the people not only in those territories but also outside.
This is not the time to deal in detail with Burma, but one of the great problems in South-East Asia today is that there is a shortage of three or four million tons of rice which used to come from Burma. Without going into the rights and wrongs of the Government there, that fact had led to a deterioration of the economic conditions in that part of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is due to the war."] No. It is due to the failure to restore the war damage there, and bad political conditions, etc., in the whole of Burma.
I wish to support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), which is in line with the point I have put in the past to the Colonial Secretary and his predecessor. The time has come for an impartial inquiry into the question of the capital in there territories—overseas capital from this country or other countries, the International Monetary Fund or any other organisation, and the part it plays in the development of those territories. Unless there is a certain degree of political stability that capital will dry up, and that will lead to deterioration in those territories. If one has seen, as Members on both sides of the House have seen, what has been done say in the Gold Coast by the mining companies—the healthy conditions of the living quarters, etc.—one knows that they have done a tremendous amount and set the standard for other people working there.
I am not critical of the local administration. They have done their best with the funds at their disposal. At the same time, the standards are very often set in those territories by the private capital which has been attracted, a great deal of which has been spent in improving the health and happiness of the people who work in those territories. I hope that that may be another reason for encouraging the Colonial Secretary to consider whether the time has not come to have a frank and open discussion of the place of capital, whether from public or private sources, in those territories, and explain it to the people there, many of whom understand more clearly than do many hon. Members opposite, the importance of attracting capital.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The great constitutional change which is now taking place in the Gold Coast deserves a better fate than the melancholy speeches which have fallen from the lips of hon. Members opposite. Their speeches have been full of dismay, gloom, fears and prognostications unworthy of a great occasion. I am sure the rest of the House, certainly those of us on this side of the House, will agree that this is a great occasion not only for the people of the Gold Coast but also for the rest of the Empire and indeed of the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which the Gold Coast hopes eventually to form part.
These craven fears are characteristic of Tory philosophy in these matters, and have delayed progress in the past, hindered the development of the British Commonwealth of Nations and Empire for many years and divided black from white. They are the negation of brotherhood and the negation of that unity which is so much preached and so little practised by His Majesty's Opposition when they are both in opposition and in power. They preach so much and practise so little that unity and brotherhood in the Commonwealth and Empire for which we on this side of the House stand.
Since this Government came into power a different philosophy and different ideas and ideals have been applied, with the result that the British Commonwealth of Nations stands higher and is greater in population and area than ever it was. Four years ago the British Commonwealth consisted of seven Dominions comprising 60 million people: today the British Commonwealth consists of 10 Dominions and 460 million people. I mention that, though perhaps I may be slightly out of order, for the purpose of indicating the difference between the philosophical line of consideration which has been applied from this side of the House against those considerations applied by hon. Members on the other side of the House.
The line taken by hon. Members opposite is characteristic of them. It is, "We congratulate the Gold Coast on what is taking place, but—," there is always a "but" in every speech. There is damnation with faint praise. I think this is an occasion for unqualified congratulation. His Majesty's Government deserve congratulation for the courage, confidence, and skill with which they have met and dealt with the popular demand for representative Government in the Gold Coast. The people of the Gold Coast deserve congratulation for their steadiness and moderation in what was to them the novel situation of a general election. Mr. Kwame Nkrumah deserves congratulation for the combination of idealism and good sense which has characterised his recent leadership and utterances.
The line taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter recalls the principle which was enunciated by the Prime

Minister as far back as March, 1946, when he said she
herself must choose what will be her future Constitution; what will be her position in the world. I hope that the people may elect to remain in the Commonwealth. I am certain she will find great advantages in doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1421.]
When those weighty, dignified, altruistic expressions fell from the lips of the Prime Minister they were in contrast with the foolish, unworthy and jingoistic rhodomontade of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on the same occasion, when he said that the granting of representative government would result in "scuttle and shameful flight," and in "ruin and disaster." Both the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Woodford were speaking not then of the Gold Coast, but of the granting of self-government to India. If the right hon. Member for Woodford had had this way in that matter we should have been at war—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot go into that matter for which the Colonial Secretary has no responsibility.

Mr. Hector Hughes: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I know he has no responsibility for war and I am not suggesting that he has. What I am dealing with is the principle which the Government applied. May I say that if the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford had been applied we would have been at war with India; we would have been holding India down by the throat, we would have been weak and a prey to any aggressor—and with that I leave that point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has disobeyed my Ruling.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Instead of the considerations to which I have just been referring, what have we today in the Gold Coast? The Gold Coast is freely stepping forward to representative government as the first African coloured people to emerge into representative government. That cannot fail to have a very important effect upon the other peoples in Africa. If this "experiment," as it has been called, is a success it cannot fail to give leadership to the other peoples in Africa; and-therefore I am sure that the wishes and hopes


of this House will go out that this experiment will be a success, and that the Gold Coast Government will prove itself to be a model government.
Their leader is a man of their own people. He has prepared for his great task by studying in British and American universities. He knows his aims and he knows his methods. He has expressed them clearly. He is reported to have said that his aim is dominion status within the British Commonwealth of Nations. His reported words were:
We are not even thinking of a republic.
He regards his present constitution as too limited, but he is willing to give it a trial and hopes to go to something higher and broader. He says he wants teachers, scientists and technicians from Britain and from all the world. These are aims which must commend themselves to this House. He says:
We are definitely not anti-British. We are against racialism. We are fighting against a system, and not races.
The House will regard these as worthy aims and worthy methods. No doubt Mr. Kwame Nkrumah has, by his long years of study, his travel and his experience, learned all the gradations from colonial status to dominion status. Now he has a representative government; he has his status enhanced; he has his people behind him; the opportunity of developing his own people, nation and Government and of seeking by legitimate means to achieve that dominion status which is his aim.
The suggestion of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) is an excellent one; that the opening of the new Parliament should be of a spectacular character, and that some notable personage should be sent to take part in it. It should be made a great occasion. I am sure that we in this House hope it will result in added strength and happiness, not only to the people of the Gold Coast, but to the whole of the Empire and Commonwealth of Nations of which they are part.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire): I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was moved entirely by generous and proper motives in raising this subject on

the Adjournment tonight. It is no fault of his if the debate has ranged rather more widely than he originally intended, or if subjects of the fiercest controversy, wholly unrelated to the Gold Coast, have been introduced by his hon. Friends.
It would be very tempting to follow up some of those observations, and in particular some of the remarks which fell from the lips of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, on matters of mathematics and history. I hope his professional qualifications at the Bar entitle him to the title of "learned," for on the two other subjects which I have mentioned, some of his remarks were certainly very wide of the mark. I do not intend to follow these various observations, because it is quite certain that the remarks made in this House will be fully reported in the Gold Coast, in African and other papers, and I do not wish in any way to enter into controversies and problems which have nothing to do with the very definite and quite formidable problem with which the people of the Gold Coast are now confronted.
The Gold Coast and Great Britain have had a long and honourable association together. We in this country have nothing of which to be ashamed in the task we have discharged and are discharging upon the Gold Coast; and any changes, constitutional or economic, which may happen in the Gold Coast are very close to the hearts and interests of the British people. I associate the Conservative Party with a message of goodwill to the people of the Gold Coast, in the lively hope that their political leaders will rise to the great responsibilities with which they are now confronted. On the way in which the African politicians on the Gold Coast discharge their duty in the months that lie ahead, many great issues will turn. We shall be watching with the closest and most sympathetic interest the way in which they meet these formidable responsibilities.
We express a hope that they will lose no chance, whether administrative or social, of keeping in the closest touch with the many British people of goodwill who want to help them along this difficult road. Suggestions that they might live some isolated life of their own removed from the normal friendly contacts with people of goodwill, will not augur well


for the happy and prosperous time to which people in both countries look forward. I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposed that some sort of message should go out from this House. That is, of course, a matter that, no doubt in proper time if it was thought desirable, would be proposed by the Government. We should have to look at the Motion and consider it on its merits.
I should like at this stage to sound a note of caution. In the British Commonwealth from day to day continuous constitutional changes and developments take place. It is most difficult at any one moment in any one Colony to say precisely at what point self-government within the Empire has been reached. It would be very dangerous if we were to start sending messages from this House in one particular case without relating them to the many other Colonies and colonial problems which are of equal importance to us and to the people themselves.
We must beware of assuming that gradual evolutions that have received a great deal of publicity in the Press are necessarily more important, looking at the Empire as a whole, than the steady changes which are happening all the time in other parts of our widespread Commonwealth. This is not to mean that we do not wish God-speed and every success to this Constitution. I hope that His Excellency the Governor and the many British officials who have laboured so hard in previous years may be there to see the success of these changes. I hope that they realise how much the good wishes of the British people are with them in the much more difficult task with which they are now faced. I am glad that the hon. Member for Rugby has given us an opportunity of expressing those sentiments tonight.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. McAllister: This debate has ranged far and wide and has tended to include within its orbit every country in the British Commonwealth; but despite the far-ranging character of the speeches, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) was right to introduce into the debate the general question of the increase in indigenous populations and the increase in famine

over the world. I do not think that that was specially related to the Gold Coast, because the problem is not so acute there as it is in Kenya, where in 15 years' time unless something drastic is done, there will be famine on the Indian scale. But I think that it has some relevance to the Gold Coast in that, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said, the British have nothing, or at the worst very little, to be ashamed of in their contribution to the development of the Gold Coast in particular and West Africa as a whole.
We are still very much in the dark about the rising populations in these countries, because we do not know exactly what the populations are. However, we know that they are rising; that there is a formidable birth rate and a formidable infant mortality rate. We know that the disease rate as a whole is steadily decreasing and that, as we have developed West Africa, so we have introduced in medical treatment new drugs and new facilities which have resulted in a considerable all-round reduction in the death rate. It will be of immeasurable benefit to the people of Africa if we can keep pace with that medical development so that food is also produced and the people allowed to live proper lives. It is no use reducing the death rate, and thus increasing the population, unless other steps are taken to ensure that nutrition and proper living standards are brought into relationship.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that this is a case for rejoicing and not particularly a moment when we should start to slander ourselves and suggest that we have not done what we ought to have done. On the whole, we have done nothing in these territories except raise the general level of the economy in the interests equally of the Africans and of the Europeans. On the political side, we are now congratulating the Gold Coast on being one of the first of our Colonial Territories to reach this stage in self-government. That is a matter for unqualified rejoicing. It is the policy of the Government, as I understand it, that we should tend towards self-government for all our Colonial Territories.
There may be quarrels between one side of the House and the other about the speed of such developments, but I doubt whether even on the other side of


the House, there is any desire to impede in any final and permanent way the progress of the Colonies towards self-government. I think, too, that we can congratulate the people of the Gold Coast on having reached this stage of development and Mr. Nkrumah on the dramatic victory that he has achieved at the poll. Nkrumah, in his speeches since his release, has matched the speed and the magnanimity of the Government with statements that show that he may reach heights of statesmanship which his opponents would never have suspected a few weeks ago. That is the way with great revolutions in Britain and the British Commonwealth. People who have been bitterly opposed and who have been condemned by their political opponents, suddenly find, on their accession to power, that those who bitterly opposed them help them on their way in their task.
One would be forgiven if one viewed the future of the Gold Coast not only with sympathy but with some little concern and anxiety. It is a commonplace in colonial discussions today to say that welfare must go hand in hand with development. That truism is profound. Unless the peoples realise that economic development must provide the means for welfare and that there is no other way, too great hopes are bound to suffer because they cannot be fulfilled.
The Gold Coast is faced with a particularly perilous economic problem. The problem of swollen shoot is not something that can be overcome by any form of self-government. Self-government may help, but it would not necessarily assist in the efforts to overcome the swollen shoot problem. The swollen shoot disease is a dire threat to the whole economy of the Gold Coast. Unless the new Government rise to their responsibilities in that respect then the future of the Gold Coast in 10 or 15 years' time will be dark and doubtful.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) about capital, and I endorse another hon. Member's suggestion that there might be some kind of impartial inquiry into the capitalisation of development in the West Coast of Africa and in the Colonies generally. There probably is no subject about which more nonsense is talked than the subject of the capital development of the Colonies. It is non-

sense which has come much more from the other side of the House than from this. There have been several remarks from hon. Members opposite to the effect that in East Africa, in the groundnuts scheme, a great deal of capital has been sunk and a great deal of capital has been lost. I do not think that at this stage in the history of the groundnuts scheme anybody will deny that, but was not a great deal of capital sunk in the Gold Coast and in Nigeria, and lost, not by the Government but by free, unfettered private enterprise?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Who also bore the loss.

Mr. McAllister: Free private enterprise went into the Gold Coast and Nigeria, spent millions of money and suffered losses, which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire points out, were not suffered by the taxpayers of Great Britain, but by the shareholders who invested their money. Does that make any great difference? The capital has gone out from the United Kingdom, from the basic capital resources of the United Kingdom, created by the only people who create capital in the United Kingdom—the people of Great Britain—and it does not really matter very much whether it was invested by private enterprise or by the Government.

Miss Irene Ward: It does.

Mr. McAllister: I am sure that the hon. Lady thinks that it does or she would not sit on that side of the House.

Miss Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Since he stimulates me to intervene, for which I am much obliged, may I say that I do not think that old age pensioners are particularly pleased to read of large losses on the groundnuts scheme. Therefore, I think that there is a distinction to be drawn between the two expenditures.

Mr. Speaker: We are getting on to dangerous ground. Tomorrow we shall have a Bill dealing with groundnuts, which we shall be discussing. We are now getting very near to discussing legislation on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. McAllister: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make the general point that, in the development of


a continent such as Africa and a Colony such as the Gold Coast, whoever invests the initial money would be pretty likely to suffer a loss, and that it is to the credit and not the disgrace of the private investors who invested money in the Gold Coast, took a risk for so long and have now built up the Gold Coast territory to a position in which it is an economic unit of great value to the people of the Gold Coast and to the people of the whole Commonwealth.
The Gold Coast, however, has formidable difficulties to face. It also has enormous possibilities of development for good. The timber development which has been taking place in recent years is of the utmost importance both to them and to us. I should like to see the Government giving encouragement to co-operative consumers' movements all over the Gold Coast. There is one in Accra at the moment. It is a small beginning, but I hope that that small beginning will result in many other similar societies in other parts of the territory. I should like to see building societies and housing societies on the model of those here but developed from African capital, because it is entirely mistaken to assume that the Gold Coast has no wealthy Africans or that there is not a great deal of capital on the Gold Coast, in the possession of ordinary people, that could be pooled together on the model of the British co-operative movement in order to produce developments of great benefit to their own people and the world.
In a final word, I should like to say that all hon. Members join in congratulating the Gold Coast on the status it has now reached. We join in congratulating the Governor on the wisdom and speed which he has shown in the last critical 10 days, and we look forward to some indication in a more formal way of the manner in which the good wishes of this House may be conveyed to the people in this Colony.

6.45 p.m.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: The last time I spoke in this House was during a colonial debate, and I think that mention was made at that time of the name of Mr. Nkrumah. My one regret about the developments in the Gold Coast is that we in this House have

not had the opportunity of meeting some of the people who are now going to be leading political figures in the future in this new part of our democratic set-up in the Commonwealth.
Mr. Nkrumah, who is now in a position of some importance, is a man who was recently in gaol for being an agitator. Luckily, he will shortly be installed in a new Assembly as the leader of an almost new nation, and I hope that very soon we shall find him over here as a visitor through our Parliamentary Commonwealth Association. It is a pity that we could not have done that before, because I am sure that the easy way in which they seem to have merged into this new process shows that there has been a demand that we should help them to recreate our democratic system out there.

Sir P. Macdonald: We have had a great many visiting delegations from the Gold Coast and also from the West African Colonies in the past, and I think we have even had Mr. Nkrumah.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I am well aware of that; it is perfectly true. I am not suggesting that we never had these things; I am just pointing out that it is a great pity we did not have this gentleman, who was in gaol only a short time ago. I think that it shows great credit on our administration that he is no longer a gaol bird, but one who fights in the same spirit as we do here.
There has been an absence of serious incidents in the election, but, if anything, it was well conducted. I was talking the other day to a friend who was giving an account of incidents in the election campaign, from which it seemed that, if a representative of the British Press was seen in the audience, there was a signal from the platform that he must be brought up to the platform, not to report the proceedings, but to sit next to the principal speaker. So much was the respect they had for our Press and their admiration for the way in which their cause would be reported.
That is all very good, and I would join with all other hon. Members in desiring to send our very best wishes to these new workers in a democratic community in the Gold Coast. I listened with great respect, as I always do, to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and I agree with him


that we must be cautious in sending these congratulatory messages, as there are or have been other constitutional changes taking place in the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Member or some of his representatives will get together with the Minister and devise some way in which we can send our sincere good wishes to this newest democratic outpost in Africa.

6.49 p.m.

Sir Harold Roper: I very much regret that circumstances prevented me from attending the greater part of this debate, but I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the suggested message of good wishes which hon. Members on both sides of the House have proposed this afternoon.
While I am full of hope that what has happened in the Gold Coast will result in progress until ultimate success is reached, I feel that I must recall one incident in my own experience in a country which I know, and which I think has a close bearing on the speeches we have heard today. I want to record an incident which occurred while I was sitting on a committee in Burma which was discussing the set-up of the education system in that country on the conclusion of hostilities. There were mainly Burmans on that committee and one or two Europeans, of whom I was privileged to be one. The subject we were discussing was whether or not after the war we should go back to the old system of having European professors in Rangoon University. The senior Burman present—an ardent Nationalist—was protesting that public opinon would not stand for a return to that system.
I wish to put on record a most courageous utterance delivered by a junior Burman on that committee in opposition to the point put forward by his senior colleague with regard to public opinion. His words were almost identically as follows: "I cannot sit here any longer and listen to what Mr. So-and-so"—I will omit his name—"keeps calling 'public opinion.' In the course of my duties as Registrar of this University, I interview the parents of many hundreds of students and would-be students every year, and I am convinced that what the people of this country want is not self-government, but a good education for their children. I also believe that what this gentleman

refers to as 'public opinion' is not public opinion at all, but the view of a minority of politically-minded people with the backing of the local Press."
That was a courageous statement, and I think it very appropriate to this debate as indicating that we must view with caution the events now taking place in the Gold Coast. We all hope most sincerely that they will turn out for the best, but we must have the closest regard, not only for the few individuals who are taking such a prominent part in its development, but for the welfare of its people. It is that that is of the greatest importance.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: We must all feel a deep sense of personal loss on this occasion and I am sure we all wish that the late Mr. Oliver Stanley could have been here this evening to speak the words used by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). Mr. Oliver Stanley believed in self-government. Indeed, it was he, I think, who during the Coalition laid it down that the object of British colonial policy was self-government inside the British Commonwealth.
What happened in the Gold Coast last week was a step forward along the road of self-government for that Colony. I believe that democracy is on trial there, and that, if it breaks down, it will not be because Mr. Nkrumah or the Convention People's Party have failed, but because democracy itself has failed. If we want to succeed in our battle against totalitarian ideas, we must prove that democracy will work in the backward areas of the world. We do not yet know that it will; we are only now trying it out.
I am sure this House is serving the best interests, not only of our own country but also of the Gold Coast, when it sends its good wishes, not only to Mr. Nkrumah and the Convention People's Party, but to all the people of the Gold Coast. Last week, when I saw that the Convention People's Party had won by an overwhelming majority, I went to a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House and asked them to join with me in sending Mr. Nkrumah a message of congratulation. In that message, I expressed the hope, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, that Mr. Nkrumah would have the wisdom to guide the


people of the Gold Coast along the path of freedom, justice and democracy. In reply, Mr. Nkrumah thanked the Labour signatories of that congratulatory message but then went on to say that he "wished Britain would recognise our claim to self-government."
Let us consider for a moment why it was that Mr. Nkrumah secured such an overwhelming majority in the elections last week. During the debate on colonial affairs last July, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to release Mr. Nkrumah from prison. My words, apparently, had no effect, because I do not think that in his reply my right hon. Friend even referred to what I said. I pointed out to him that even if he did not release him from prison then, he would release him eventually. I believe it would have been better for the success of democracy in the Gold Coast if my right hon. Friend—

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would point out to my hon. Friend that I opened that debate; I did not reply to it.

Mr. Wigg: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I take back what I said about him and pass it on to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not do anything about it; he left Mr. Nkrumah in prison from July last until now. After Mr. Nkrumah has won the election, he lets him out. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was the Governor who released him."] I agree that it was the Governor and not my right hon. Friend, but I cannot visualise the Governor doing that unless he thought my right hon. Friend would approve.
My point is clear. We have to make the best of what has happened. I confess that Mr. Nkrumah has shown a friendliness which surprises me. He has expressed his intention to try to make the Constitution work. I am no more optimistic about the matter than the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper), and I am certainly not going to throw my hat in the air and say that I am sure that everything in the garden is now going to be lovely, because it is perfectly clear that the Convention People's Party have, at most, a very limited programme. It seems to me that their programme consists of the two

words "self-government," and that, I am afraid, will not indefinitely satisfy all the people of the Gold Coast.
But the fact is that we have achieved something. We have carried through the elections in an atmosphere of good will, and we have shown the Convention People's Party that we intend to do our best to make the new Constitution work. One can only hope that in the light of experience we and the Convention People's Party will learn to trust each other, and that when difficulties arise, as they certainly will, both sides—the officials and the Convention People's Party—will realise that they are not merely trying to make something new work in the Gold Coast but they are trying out an experiment in democracy. If, in fact, we for our part can show that it is possible for a dominant Power to transfer its authority to what only a few years ago was a backward people, then I suggest we shall provide one of the answers which will enable us to combat Communism in other parts of the world.
I know that there is a theory that if Imperialism ceases to have its run, Communism must take its place. I do not believe that is true. I do not believe Imperialism has any part to play in the modern world, and if a Government attempts to administer backward areas by imperialist methods, it is providing a recruiting agency for the Communists. I also believe it is possible for an experiment like the one that is being made in the Gold Coast to succeed. If that happens, then indeed we can show that backward peoples, aided by the Government in power, can build up their economic and political institutions until the time is reached when they can stand on their own feet.
I am not one of those who believe that Western Europe is the testing place in the struggle between Communism and democracy. Taking the long view, I believe that Africa and India are infinitely more important in the struggle between Communism and democracy than is Europe, because India has yet to complete democratisation; and in the years that lie ahead the struggle that will arise with rapid industrialisation and the difficulties of feeding the people of India may provide a recruiting ground for Communism which will lead to the redress of power in favour of the Soviet Union.
The stage which has been reached in India will also occur in Africa.
I believe that not only will the eyes of other West African and East African Colonies be on the Gold Coast, but that all over the world we shall be judged by whether we can provide an answer to Communism that will satisfy the peoples of the backward areas of the world. It is for that reason that I join with other hon. Gentlemen in congratulating the people of the Gold Coast, Convention People's Party and Mr. Nkrumah and in hoping that they will join with us as equal partners in working for the well-being of the Gold Coast. I certainly hope from the bottom of my heart that the experiment will be a success.

7.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I am certain that every hon. Member in the House will congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) upon the very interesting debate he has initiated. It is indeed a piece of good fortune that he had the Adjournment for this evening and that he changed the subject to be debated. I should like to commend him for doing that, because it would have been a pity in many ways if this great event in the Gold Coast taking place to-morrow had happened without an opportunity of saying a word about it today.
This indeed is an epoch-making event, and I am sure that all of us, whatever our differences, are agreed that we want to preserve democratic Government and Parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy and representative Government have grown up in the old continent of Europe and in our own country, and this Parliament has played a distinctive part in the growth of representative Government not only in this country but in Europe and all over the world. How cheering it is in a period in which we have seen the old democracies of Europe overwhelmed and destroyed, that this evening we are all of us thinking of a new democracy that is being born. It is to the credit of this country, and, if I may say so, to the credit of the Government to which I am privileged to belong that perhaps the best answer to those who accuse us of being imperialists is that at this moment this Government is creating

new democracies in Africa and setting them on the road to self-government.
What has happened in the Gold Coast and what will be symbolised by the new Assembly to-morrow is epoch-making in every possible respect. To begin with, the Constitution under which the elections were held was the work of a committee which by its composition marked a new epoch in colonial affairs. It was a constitution built out of the Report of the Coussey Committee which was composed entirely of Africans so that, for the first time, we had a committee composed entirely of the people of the region considering what their future constitutional advance should be. That Constitution came to be considered. Eventually it was adopted and the next step was to prepare for the elections.
It is a difficult job to prepare for elections in our own country, and all of us who have had experience of them know that it is indeed a formidable job to provide the machinery and organisation. We have had experience for many years, and the whole machinery of parties and of national and local government is now so well-established and well-ordered that we take it for granted. One of the most significant successes of this constitution-making in the Gold Coast is the remarkable smoothness and efficiency with which the elections have been conducted.
Indeed, there were hon. Members on both sides of this House who, at varying times, expressed concern as to how the elections would be conducted, as to whether there would be fair play and whether what was described as "the mob" would affect the elections. The Governor and his officers have given their very best from the beginning to create and establish electoral machinery that would enable these elections to be the authentic voice of the people of the Gold Coast. I want to pay my tribute to the Governor and his officers for the thought and the work they have put into this matter. At the end of the elections I received a report from the Governor which showed that that work had been crowned with success.
Perhaps the House will be interested in a very short report on these very important elections, so pregnant with meaning for the future of Africa and elsewhere. First, we had to register the electors and


I am glad to say, having regard to all the circumstances, the percentage of electors registered was very satisfactory. It was 47 per cent. The Governor has reported to me that no serious incidents of any kind occurred during the elections. They passed off smoothly and efficiently. In fact everywhere there was a quiet and a seriousness which impressed him and his officers and as hon. Members will have seen, impressed the Press of very many countries who were keenly interested in the elections and who sent special representatives to the Gold Coast. I should like to thank the Press for the very responsible way in which they have reported all these events.
The Governor reports to me that there was only one arrest for personation during the whole election. I think that is a very great tribute indeed and an indication that everyone had worked very well. He pays tribute to the police arrangements and to the way in which they handled the situation. I should like to join him in that tribute. I am also very glad to join him in the particular tribute he pays to the leaders of the C.P.P. for the way they co-operated with the officers in making the elections a success.
Now that the elections have taken place we face the next step. Tomorrow the Assembly will meet. Their first task will be to elect a Speaker and in that they will be keeping the tradition of this House. The meeting tomorrow is informal and it has been arranged that later on, towards the end of March, when the Assembly will meet and will be considering the major business of the Budget, that meeting will be regarded as the real formal opening of the new Assembly. If messages are to be sent it seems to me that the appropriate occasion upon which to send them will be on what is regarded as that formal opening of the Assembly at the end of March.
Some interesting suggestions have been made. One is that we might send a resolution from this House, and that some representative from the Government or representatives of political parties or some eminent personage outside this House should visit the Gold Coast and carry our message of good will on the occasion of the formal opening at the end of March. I can only tell hon. Members who made those suggestions that they will be carefully considered. There is time

for us to give consideration to all the suggestions between now and the end of March when the formal opening will take place, and I can assure hon. Members that I shall consult with my colleagues and that in some tangible way, by personal visit or in some other way, we shall symbolise our good will. That will be given fullest consideration.
This debate inevitably and naturally—I welcome it—has covered a very wide field. I do not propose now to discuss at any length many of the problems that have been raised, except to say this. First I should like to send my personal good will to the new Assembly tomorrow and to the people of the Gold Coast. We are doing something which—I do not know whether I should say it—has never been attempted before, but if attempted before it never succeeded.
What we are doing is to transform an Empire into a Commonwealth. This is one stage, in the Gold Coast. Others are following, and we have seen in the last few years the culmination of this process in what took place in India, Pakistan, and Ceylon—an Empire that is being transformed into a Commonwealth, not as a result of revolution, bloodshed and riot but as a result of a partnership between ourselves and the peoples in those territories. We all hope it will succeed.
The Governor is now having consultation with the leaders of the party, for there is a responsibility upon him to submit as soon as practicable the list of Ministers, eight of whom will be Africans, to the Assembly for their approval. Then the new Government will start its work. I would say this to the leaders of the Convention People's Party and other parties and all those in the Assembly: Here is your chance; take it with both hands. Here is your opportunity to make this Constitution work. You may think that the Constitution which you have now is not all you desire it to be, but it gives you a greater authority, greater power, greater responsibility, a greater chance and a greater challenge than has ever before come to peoples in a Colony like yours in Africa. I would say this further to them: Democratic government is perhaps the most difficult to work. It is because it is most difficult that in the end its gains are most substantial and more permanent, and its advantages are


greater. They will have great responsibilities and opportunities. They certainly have my best wishes, and I think those of everybody in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and others. In our day and generation the most important problem of all is in what direction this new emerging sense of nationhood in Africa, Asia and elsewhere will march—this reaching out of people in what in the past we have called the backward areas. They are now reaching out to the future. They want to reach out towards the government of their own country. They are beginning to develop their democracy. They are conscious, as we are conscious, that in these days, democracy—and it is one of the contributions which this Government has made—has come to be symbolised in the Welfare State, so that when people think, speak and work and ask for democracy they not only ask for the right to vote but for a better standard of life, the chance to work and a better future. That can only come about if social and economic development walk together hand in hand with constitutional advance.
The Gold Coast begins this new chapter tomorrow. They begin it with our good will. Mr. Nkrumah said in the speech to which reference has been made that he is a friend of Britain. May I say to Mr. Nkrumah and all his people, "We in Britain are your friends. We wish you well and we want in partnership with you, in beginning this new chapter tomorrow, to carry it on in such a way that eventually you, too, will join this Commonwealth as full partners."

COAL SUPPLIES (SICK AND AGED PERSONS)

7.16 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I want to begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power for being in his place at such short notice and, I believe, at some personal inconvenience.
On 23rd May last year there was a debate in this House on the subject of the domestic coal allocation, and a number of hon. Members on this side of the House argued that the system of allocation of

domestic coal represents a transfer of administrative responsibility from the shoulders of the Government, where it properly belongs, to those of the distributive coal trade, because since the coal actually received for distribution by the trade falls short of the maximum permitted quantity—which, rightly or wrongly, the public inevitably regard as a ration—the responsibility of acting as a rationing authority does in effect fall upon the individual coal merchants.
I want to use this opportunity tonight to draw attention to a particular instance of this unfair delegation of responsibility by the Government to the coal trade—that which relates to the allocation of extra coal to the sick and the aged. It is a practice of mine as far as my opportunities permit—and I am sure it is one followed by many other hon. Members—to call personally upon as many of my constituents as I can, and I find that by doing this a different set of problems is presented to me from those which my post-bag or even my weekly "surgery" bring. By visiting people in their homes one finds a different range of problems from those which reach one in the constituency office or through the post. On a rough estimation I would say that nearly 50 per cent. of the problems that I have discovered by house-to-house visits, and on which I have felt that I had to take action, were connected; at any rate during the winter months, with the problem of heating—the question of coal supplies.
This matter of domestic coal supplies, especially for the sick and aged, is one which intimately and personally affects hundreds of thousands of households throughout the country. It is hard not to be impressed with the outstanding importance of space heating for the sick and the aged. For the healthy person in adult life heating is an important but comparatively minor problem; but in the minds of the aged and the sick in the winter months heating ranks probably before food itself as the paramount consideration.
There is a system whereby a medical certificate can be given in a case where a person is aged or is sick at home. Upon that medical certificate an extra allocation of coal can theoretically be obtained. I think it will be agreed that the medical profession are both fair and reasonable


in their use of this right to issue certificates for extra coal. The next step in the procedure is for the householder who receives the doctor's chit to take it to the local fuel overseer, who issues to the householder, in return for it, an order upon the householder's coal merchant for the latter to provide the extra coal shown upon the certificate. It might, for instance, be an extra five cwt. a month, making roughly two cwt. a week, instead of the average of one cwt. a week.
The householder takes this licence from the local fuel overseer to his coal merchant. The coal merchant is then presented with what is best described as a "facer." He receives no more coal himself as a result of this licence which has been brought to him. There is no extra allocation made to him out of which he can meet the extra demand. So far as I can ascertain, there is no local or area pool or reserve to be distributed in accordance with the licences issued by the local fuel overseer. The merchant receiving the licence has to try to squeeze the extra allocation for that household out of the coal which he gets for distribution amongst his ordinary customers in order to meet the normal allocation. Very often this means that, in practice, no response at all follows the issue of the medical certificate and the conditions which called for an extra allocation of fuel remain unsatisfied.
If the coal merchant does take action—and I know from my own experience that wherever possible they do take action and that the coal trade, generally speaking, shows very great consideration for the special needs and hardships of customers—what, in fact, he does is to deliver to that address part of the normal allocation for the household but perhaps a little in advance. What is theoretically intended to happen is that there should go into that house per week or per month twice as much coal as otherwise would have been received. That is the intention of the system; and that is obviously the requirement, if one has to meet a case of age or of sickness. But, for the practical reasons which I have explained, that is what does not happen.
I hope the Minister will not use this argument tonight, but I know it is easy to say that the permitted maximum was increased during the summer months in

order to enable householders to lay in stocks for the winter, and that if the householders in question had taken time by the forelock and done so, then they could probably have obtained the extra coal allocation on top of their stocks when the time came. But it is precisely the households where there is age or chronic sickness, households which perhaps consist of one or two aged persons just managing to get along on their pension with, say, an allowance from national assistance, that the extra allocations are needed—it is just these households which, economically, were unable during the summer months to afford the expenditure to lay in stocks of coal in advance.
Time after time I have found myself in front of an empty hearth in an old person's dwelling where the old people have volunteered the information that they knew perfectly well that during the summer months there was an extra allocation which they could have bought. "But," they added, "in those months we just could not find the money week by week to buy the coal from our merchants and we had, therefore, to decline it."
Therefore, we cannot accept the increased summer allocation as an excuse for not taking practical administrative action which would bring genuinely extra coal, over and above the normal allocation, into the households where it is needed as shown by the medical certificate. At present the licence which is issued by the local fuel overseer is nothing more than a cheque drawn upon an account in which there is no money; and the indignation of the customer when the coal merchant, so to speak, marks it R.D. falls in the wrong place. It falls upon the coal merchant, who has himself no choice in the matter and is coping with insoluble difficulties. The customer's indignation should fall instead upon an administration which does not arrange for a pool or a reserve, if only a small one, against which these licences could be issued.
My object tonight is to ask the Government to consider whether they cannot make those administrative arrangements which will ensure that, when a doctor's certificate is given in a case of old age or of acute or chronic sickness, there are means whereby the extra coal can readily and without question be made available. I realise perfectly well that there is only


a fixed total amount available for domestic consumption in these current months. I realise that if a small local coal bank were set up, the coal to go into it for the purposes of the sick or the aged would necessarily have to come out of the allocations to other householders and that the gap between the quantity actually delivered and the maximum permitted would, for the ordinary householder, be slightly wider. But I am convinced that people at large, if they were satisfied that the coal was going into the households where this special need exists, would accept the slight additional hardship involved.
I hope the Government will not try to ride off what is a real problem, a problem which affects hundreds of thousands of homes, but will ask themselves whether they cannot provide administratively for its solution.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Certainly, various facets of the subject he has mentioned deserve attention, but I do not think he was quite fair in his approach to the problem, nor did he give sufficient attention to the scheme which is operating up and down the country. When I hear hon. Members opposite concerning themselves with the sick and the aged people and with their troubles and worries, I am rather amazed. I can remember quite vividly the time when those of us who hold the beliefs of this side of the House were struggling to get the old age pensions increased so that there could be money available with which to buy coal. At that time we did not get very much support from hon. Members opposite or from their friends in the country.
I would add this. This problem has been aggravated because of the economic policy of the Government. There is an aggravation of the problem because many more people in the country can now afford to burn fires—and more than one fire in a house—than formerly. It is a well-known fact that today more old people are keeping up their own homes than in the old days. This is the experience of many local authorities. It is certainly the experience of the local authority of which I was a member for many

years. Formerly, when the young people of a family grew up and married and left their home, the old couple, during those long years of widespread unemployment, went into the workhouse; but today we have fewer old people going to the workhouse and more of them retaining their own homes, and no matter what hon. Members opposite may think, there are more people burning coal in their own fires today than there were before. I think we should recognise that.

Mr. Angus Maude: The hon. Member will also recognise that the workhouses are pretty full now with people who are not able to get ordinary houses?

Mr. Manuel: No, the workhouses are not full now with people who cannot get ordinary houses. In fact, space in what are now known as "residential homes" is being turned over for hospital use—for the treatment of tuberculosis and other things. This is so in Scotland, at any rate. I will deal with the Scottish position, as I know it in my own area, and I am certain that it is not very much different from the position in the hon. Member's constituency.
However, I agree that there is a problem of supply, as indicated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I agree that for aged people, and in homes where there is illness, heat is an essential requirement that must be catered for. But when we review how the Ministry have tried to cope with this problem, we ought to be fair and we ought to see whether there is any alternative we can propose, if necessary, instead of making a tirade against what is happening without offering any alternative and without focussing the problem properly.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of extra coal in the case of sickness in the home and in the case of another family going into the house through sub-letting. What he did not say was that the fuel officers at six-monthly periods regulate the supplies of coal to the coal merchants. At the end of every six-monthly period, there is a review. The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that this should happen every day or every week, is he? Obviously, the coal merchant does not get an extra bag or an extra two bags per week, but if someone leaves the district,


or if the tenant of a house dies, the merchant does not drop off his list the bag or two bags per week in respect of that person's supply; and so there is a sort of evening up, and a balance is arrived at; so that most coal merchants find that they can work fairly easily the scheme as laid down.

Mr. Nabarro: No.

Mr. Manuel: We are not dealing with opencast just now, though perhaps we shall come on to that problem also.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I am sorry to interrupt him, but will he address himself to the point that, although a coal merchant is willing to honour a medical certificate or docket given by the fuel overseer for an additional ration of coal for an aged or infirm person, if he has got the coal, in many instances he has not got a hundredweight of coal in his yard, and therefore cannot honour the docket?

Mr. Manuel: I do not find that to be the case to any extent in my area, because while there are certain persons coming on to a merchant's list, others are going off it. Of course, he ought not to accept them on his list if he cannot supply them, and he ought to allow the docket to go to a coal merchant who can honour it, because there are fluctuations in the supplies coming forward. I find that there are also aggravations in the methods of supply by the coal merchants. In my particular district we have coal merchants who are very irregular in their deliveries. I deal with the local co-operative society, as a sane person who wants a regular supply, and I get my supply every fortnight. My wife arranges for it, and it comes with clocklike regularity on the same day every fortnight.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Manuel: I am quite certain that that has nothing to do with it, and I certainly should not allow it if it had.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: I think it is hot air.

Mr. Manuel: No doubt more heat would have been engendered if the right

hon. Gentleman had spoken in the debate, and thereby had been able to enjoy himself a little better. However, I am convinced that the scheme is working fairly well, and, after all, no scheme can be completely watertight. I am convinced that a person will not register with a coal merchant if there is no guarantee of supply. A coal merchant is quite wrong to take the additional order if he cannot meet it, as the hon. Gentleman says he cannot. I would, however, put against that what I know is happening in the matter of irregular supplies.
We have to recognise that there is not an unlimited supply of coal in the country. We cannot augment domestic supplies ad lib., but there are some stocks in the railway sidings. The coal merchants do look after their customers, and do their best to maintain and to build up their businesses. They look after their reserves for that purpose, and by means of the stocks they guard against delays in delivery to them because of snow—although that is not the same problem in England, perhaps. All these things ought to be taken into consideration.
The whole question ought to be looked at in the light of what is best for the country as a whole. We must also take into consideration that industry today is using 34 million tons of coal more per year than in pre-war years. We have to recognise that that fact raises additional problems of supplies. We have to ask ourselves whether we would rather have full employment and rather less coal just now, or a proportion of unemployment—that is, if the miners would work in such circumstances—and have more coal for everyone.
I believe that hon. Members opposite want to be fair in this particular matter. They must recognise that additional allocations are given to coal merchants at six-monthly periods, that at the six-monthly periods there is an opportunity to rectify the position, and that in between the reviews they can, on balance, regulate their deliveries to their customers within the limits of the quantities they have for their customers. I am sure that that is so in my own area. I think that in the case of old people who are entitled to the extra allocations and who cannot afford to take up their bigger supplies during the summer, we should see that they do get their supplies, as and when


they can take them, during the whole year. In the street in which I live there are sometimes two deliveries to one house because there is a sub-tenant, although there is no illness there and no old people; they get additional supplies with no trouble over delivery.
Taking everything into consideration, recognising that we have full employment and that the miner is doing a good job, and that the Government are doing a good job with the coal available, we ought to be trying to support the effort that is being made, instead of hon. Members opposite, as they do with meat, transport and everything else, trying to run down our own concerns and to put the blame on the Government. It would be much better if they indicated that we were doing a jolly good job. The workers are more concerned than hon. Gentlemen opposite about the needs of the sick and the aged, as they have proved in the past. From my experience of the Conservative Party in Scotland, for them at this stage to try to make political capital out of this and to work up synthetic indignation on behalf of the aged and sick is just so much "bosh."

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I am particularly glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, at a time when I can make some sort of reply to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who has been putting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down again at a rate seldom equalled in this House. Until he rose to his feet no question of a political nature had been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), to whom I listened very carefully, scrupulously refrained from making any allegation against the Government or any political references.
If I had had the pleasure of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Gentleman I had intended to say that I hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would not, when replying, treat us to the old, old story about the people who could not afford to buy coal before the war. He has not got the opportunity now, because his hon. Friend has done it already. I think that at this stage we might be spared this sort of thing in a non-political debate.

Mr. Manuel: Is it the hon. Gentleman's contention that today the subject of coal is non-political? Surely he is not un-political in his outlook, and no matter how the question is approached the whole subject of coal is political.

Mr. Maude: It is perfectly obvious that the question we are now discussing is, in effect, non-political. The question whether or not there is enough coal in the country is no doubt political, but that is not what we are discussing. We are endeavouring by agreement, in what we had hoped would be a friendly discussion with the Minister, to discover methods by which this problem could be solved. As I see it, there is no reason for introducing these political polemics.
The question of how much coal is being produced is a question which may be political, but the question of what machinery we could use to see that the needs of the sick and aged are properly met in present circumstances is quite a different question. The argument about the poor who could not afford to buy coal at all before the war is always used in connection with meat, coal and everything else, but it does not seem to me to be an adequate reason for refusing to discuss in a rational spirit the question of how to make the machinery that exists work in the present situation, and this is the difficulty which we on this side of the House have continually to face. Hon. Members on the back benches opposite will ride these questions off on to matters which in my view are completely irrelevant.
I assure the Minister that I for one—and I think I speak for quite a lot of my hon. Friends—do not regard this particular question as one in which the Government and the nationalised industry on one side are perhaps to be shot at, and the private enterprise coal merchant on the other side is to be defended at all costs, because in my experience, very frequently in this respect the coal merchant is to blame. I have had cases in my own constituency, as I am sure all hon. Members have, where without question the coal merchant was to blame because the old or sick persons concerned were unable to get round to the office to press their case as strongly as the more able members of the community could do, and had their allocations cut despite the issue of medi-


cal certificates, fuel overseers' certificates and so on.
An ordinary able-bodied family with a strong man in command of it can usually ensure that the coal merchant is bullied sufficiently to make him live up to his obligations; somebody in the family can go round to the merchant every morning or every afternoon until something is done, but the old or sick person living alone is not able to do so. Often the old or sick person can rely on nothing more than writing an occasional letter to try to chase up the order. I have known of orders placed in September or October which have not been met in the following January, which has certainly nothing to do with the coal shortage.
If a coal merchant adopts that view the Minister may well say, "What has that to do with me? It is a question purely and simply for the coal merchant." I am not so sure that it is. I feel that there are certain steps that could be taken. Here I would remind the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that my hon. Friend began by quite clearly saying that we on this side acknowledged the present stocks and production position; we acknowledge that there is not enough coal to go round to give everybody as much as they want. However, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire retaliated, almost as if he had not heard what my hon. Friend said, by saying that we must consider what was in the interests of the country as a whole.
That is a very dangerous argument in this case. It is the old argument of rough justice. It is as good as saying that so long as everybody is getting a bit and the wheels of industry are just kept turning it could not matter less if some poor and sick people go without. The hon. Gentleman worked up a certain amount of heat about Tories daring to raise any question which concerned welfare. I know his heart is very warm and that he has the interest of his people at heart, but it seemed that in much of his speech he was advocating a line which would be in the worst possible interests of his people.
The stock and production position affect the situation in two ways. First, the consumer is placed in a position wherein he cannot freely change his coal merchant if he is dissatisfied. In theory he can change his coal merchant at the speci-

fied times, but in practice, as I am sure the Minister will agree, an old and rather timid person feels that, if he has been with a coal merchant for a long time and he goes to a new one, he will go to the bottom of a long list, and probably not get very good service.
Secondly, the shortage means and nationalisation means—I do not want to go into that too much—that the coal merchant himself is very much restricted. Under nationalisation, he cannot change his supplier, so if he fails to get enough coal to honour the demands made upon him, he can do very little about it. I cannot believe that it is quite impossible for the local fuel overseer, with the aid perhaps of a helpful directive from the Minister of Fuel and Power, to inquire a little more closely into the position of these old people in each area than has so far been done, because the information service as regards old people particularly is much better now than it used to be.
Old people's welfare committees, local authorities and many other bodies are doing a great deal more to find out how these old people live. There are still some, but far fewer now, who are never visited at all and of whose existence no one knows. In the London boroughs it is rather tragic how many do not get visited even now, but we are going further in the direction of locating these people and seeing what can be done for them. I am sure that the welfare machinery that exists could be used to put the fuel overseer in touch with particular cases where difficulties have arisen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is clearly right when he says that a doctor's certificate and a fuel office certificate are of no use if they cannot be translated into terms of coal. No one would disagree about that. If the Minister can reassure us by telling us exactly what is being done to meet this need, and if he would undertake in future to consider in the light of this debate individual cases brought to his notice and see whether the machinery for dealing with them is in fact working, we should feel much happier about it than we have hitherto.
In Central Ayrshire conditions may be all right; but for people in London, the Midlands and far from the coal fields the situation is very far from being all right,


I do not say that the whole distribution machinery is breaking down, but there are a number of toads beneath the harrow who are feeling the teeth. If we could feel that the Minister would consider individual cases brought to him and would give some directive to the local fuel officers which would ensure that these old people are not neglected month after month and even winter after winter, we should feel much happier.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I suggest that we on this side of the House should wholeheartedly join with hon. Members opposite in recommending that the Minister give his attention to this very deserving matter. I think that it has been within the province of most of us during the cold weather to witness the severe suffering of some old folk owing to the tightness of the coal situation, and therefore I am sure that we sincerely support hon. Members opposite in making this plea to the Minister. I do not think that the coal merchant is particularly blameworthy in many of these cases where he is unable to supply old people with the extra coal recommended by their doctors.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harrison: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, I wish to tell him that he should address his reproofs in this matter to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel).

Mr. Harrison: I was not reproving anyone.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman ought to.

Mr. Harrison: It is not my nature. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was trying to strengthen the case that this was a matter deserving of consideration by the Minister. If I wanted to enter into the realms of reproof or of acrimony, I might suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if it were left to his district, we should very likely be worse off than we are now, because we are fully aware of his loud advocacy of no opencast mines for Warwickshire.

Mr. Nabarro: The constituency which I have the honour to represent is the Kidderminister Parliamentary Division of Worcester, not Warwickshire.

Mr. Harrison: I apologise to Warwickshire. It was Worcestershire to which I was referring. The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Angus Maude), said that it was possible in pre-nationalisation days for the coal merchant to change his colliery supplier. That was not so in hardly any of the cases that came within my knowledge. The coal merchant was tied to a colliery in almost the same way as he is tied today. He could change between one or two, but he had little liberty in the matter.
I do not say that it is possible for us to leave these old folk to the tender mercies of any district or to be dependent upon the strong arm tactics for getting extra coal from the coal merchant. We ought to find some other way to enable them to get coal. With the present machinery we ought to see that something is done so that these old folk, with doctors' certificates, can obtain extra supplies when they are available. I would support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, that very often these stocks are available in the railway yards and that it should be made quite clear to every applicant that there are no stocks available before he is refused.

Mr. Maude: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) recognise the fact that the position in the neighbourhood near a coalfield is very different from what it is in the south.

Brigadier Clarke: Let the hon. Gentleman opposite come down south and have a look.

Mr. Harrison: I was prompted to take part in this debate because of the conditions that exist in my own constituency where we can see the pitheads if we look just outside the division. It was because of the shortage there and of the suffering of our old people that I took the liberty to come into this debate. While it may be worse down south, we have some difficulties even in the coal area on this question of the supply of coal to old people. I can assure hon. Members down south that that is the case. The hon.
Member for Ealing, South, prefaced his speech by saying that he hoped the Minister would not trot out the old story about people before the war being unable to buy coal because the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire had already taken the story out of his mouth. I remember quite distinctly living in a coal area where the only source of supply that old people or other people had, was to follow the coal carts over the old cobblestones. People used to walk behind the cart picking up the coal that had dropped off. That was their only source of supply. It is the old old story, but nevertheless it is a true one. People before the war needed coal very much in the depth of winter and the only supply available to them was the coal that had fallen off the carts. I can assure Members opposite that that situation does not exist today. While we have a tightness in the supply of coal, we at least have a little coal to keep small fires going.

Mr. Alport: Is the hon. Member aware that in my part of Essex, when the tide goes out, people collect from, the river banks coal which has been dropped from ships, so that they can have a fire?

Mr. Harrison: That may be the case in the hon. Member's constituency at a time when there is a shortage of coal. At the time I am referring to there was plenty of coal and the miners were out of work. That is the time when people had to pick up coal from the streets. The difference today is that because of the shortage of coal it is a very profitable job to salvage it from the river bank. I am referring to the old, old story.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I was glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), because it seemed to me that he was correcting some of the unfortunate remarks that had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel).

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member does not like the history.

Mr. Carr: I was sorry to find, however, that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, fell into the same error as his

hon. Friend at the conclusion of his speech. When I hear speeches such as we have heard from Members opposite today, I have to pinch myself very hard to believe that it was Members opposite who won their victory at the General Election by putting their names to a document called "Let us Face the Future." They may face the future, but their eyes must be at the back of their heads. Even if their eyes are at the back of their head, their hindsight seems just as defective as their foresight.
We are dealing here with a human problem, and I would remind Members opposite that long before the party they represent was born, people like Disraeli, Shaftesbury and many others were doing what they could to meet problems of this kind. It is true that before the war much still remained to be done, but it is also true that much remains to be done today, and the way the present Government are forgetting the question of priority means that what has to be done will be increased rather than decreased in the coming years.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member says that we are forgetting priorities. Will he take that a bit further? There is priority, if we can get it at all—[Laughter.] I am talking administratively. Has the hon. Member forgotten priorities for the school children by way of fruit juice and cod liver oil? The hon. Member should not listen to the advice of his hon. Friends, which will only lead him up the garden path. "The Right Road for Britain" will certainly put us in Queer Street.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member condemns himself out of his own mouth by talking about "priority if we can get it." We are maintaining that priorities should be effective. The hon. Member has asked me to expand this subject a little further. I should dearly like to do so, but I am afraid that before very long I should find myself out of order. Perhaps I might give him two examples. We find that under the Health Service tuberculosis is not being adequately dealt with because we are not devoting enough resources to its treatment.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is it in order to go beyond the scope of this debate, which is concerned with fuel supplies?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Anything is in order on the Adjournment providing it does not involve legislation.

Mr. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, will agree that we are not devoting enough resources to the treatment of tuberculosis. It does not seem to make sense in any effective priority system to give everyone free dentures and so on when we cannot find enough resources to devote to tuberculosis, which in my opinion is the more urgent need. I shall also give the example of the school dental service. We find that the number of dentists in this service is falling because we are not devoting enough resources to get the dentists we require, whereas we are providing free dentures for old people regardless of need. It seems to me to be fantastic that we should be overlooking dental treatment for our school children, which is the only way to improve the dental health of the country in the future.

Mr. Manuel: There is one aspect of the matter which the hon. Member has completely forgotten. Does he not agree that every child in the country can get dental treatment from the family dentist? The hon. Member who is preaching economies in the Health Service is now asking for an additional service for each child in the country.

Mr. Carr: I am saying that we need an effective priority system for the resources which are not as big as we should like them to be, which means devoting sufficient resources in the first place to the most urgent needs as against the less urgent although most highly desirable needs.
I should now like to return to the subject of coal supplies, having been led up, or down, the garden path on the question of Socialist lack of priorities. We are here faced with an immediate human problem. It does no good to these people to spend our time looking back on the past. What we are concerned with is to see whether we can do something to help these people who are suffering at this moment. The two Members who have spoken from the Government benches happen to sit for coal field areas, and therefore I am sure the position is bound to be much brighter in their constituencies. Those living in the south

will know that this is a real problem indeed. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), has said, the people who are suffering most are the old people who cannot afford to stock up in the summer, to go down to the coal yard with a pram or barrow with which to bring back some small supplies, or to call at the coal office day in and day out until they can get their coal delivered. It is our duty to do something to help these people.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire accused my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, of not making any constructive suggestion. I thought his suggestion that a local fuel pool should be arranged in each area, even if it meant some reduction in the overall domestic ration in order to ensure that there is local fuel for these old people, was something that deserved attention. This is a domestic problem and not a political one. I want to add my testimony that there is need for some administrative action in order to help these people. It is a matter of importance, and if the Welfare State means anything at all, it means that we do everything in our power to make sure, that those in the greatest need receive help, and in this case that means in their coal cellars.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) at the beginning of his speech gave me the impression that he was treating this matter in a humorous way, but as he developed his speech and came to the concluding part he struck another note. He said it was an intensely human problem which we were discussing, and with that I am in full agreement. When we are dealing with the sick and the old it is an intensely human problem, and I have no desire to make it into a political argument, because the matter to me is too serious to be the subject of political gibes across the Floor of the House.
The subject before the House is, to what extent, with the available supplies at our disposal, can we meet the needs of the aged and the sick? I intensely dislike people advancing arguments and blaming the Government for what is now taking place. I am happy to know that in this debate so far, no


mention has been made of the miners. We are now dealing with an administrative problem, and I want to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and my hon. Friend the. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), when they said that before the last war it was impossible for old people to buy coal because they had not the money with which to buy it. That statement stands unchallenged. No old age pensioner or sick pensioner could buy coal on a pension of 10s. a week.
In the matter under debate tonight, some of the coal distributors are not immune or exempt from blame. I sometimes also blame the Co-operative Society, about which we get constant reminders from the other side of the House. They are not free from blame in dealing with the distribution of coal. From time to time I have had reason to call the attention of coal distributors in my division to the fact that they are not fulfilling their obligations either through failure to meet priority claims which come to them from fuel overseers, or because of medical certificates. Immediately I have drawn their attention to it, they have found ways to meet the needs of those consumers who have such a priority from the overseer or are supported by a medical certificate, and it always seems to me that by a strange wave of a magic wand they are able to find the coal that is needed for the old age pensioners and for the sick people.
I am happy to say that there are very few distributors against whom I have had to make a complaint, but it is often the case that because of the few, all the distributors are charged with neglect. In my opinion, it is wrong, dishonest, and unjust for the coal distributor to accept consumers if he knows full well that he cannot supply their needs. Such distributors would be well advised to say to the old people or to the sick, "With the allocation I have I cannot supply your needs, and, therefore, I would much prefer you to go to some other distributor who is in a position to supply your needs."
There is another point I want to make. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), raised this matter, and I should like to ask him whether it has been dealt with in his

locality. Have representations been made to the local fuel overseer? If so, what has been the result? From my experience I know that as soon as I have made a complaint about the non-supply of coal to a consumer with a medical certificate, the fuel overseer has dealt with it immediately either with the distributor or through some other source. I should like to ask the hon. Member to what extent this matter has been brought to the notice of the fuel overseer?

Mr. Powell: Of course, when an individual case is taken up with the fuel overseer or the coal supplier by the Member of Parliament, that individual case is dealt with, but my object in raising the whole issue was to ensure that these cases would be dealt with automatically, without difficulty and without the accidental and individual intervention of the Member of Parliament.

Mr. Brown: I accept the answer to the question which I addressed to the hon. Member.
May I put another question bearing on this subject? It is well now that the subject has been raised to have the whole matter threshed out. How far and to what extent have the coal distributors with the assistance of the local fuel overseer made application for an allocation of what we call cushion supplies—something over and above the normal supply of coal? It is possible for a coal distributor to tell the local fuel overseer that it is impossible for him to supply the demands which are now being made, and with the assistance of the fuel overseer he can make application for a cushion supply to meet the needs of the old people and the sick. How far has that been done?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the major issue I am raising is that the coal, in respect of which a certificate is issued, is not received, and the householder, therefore, has not, in fact, received the extra ration to which his certificate entitled him.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is evading the question I put to him, because he knows full well, if he has been dealing with individual cases, that the regulations and the general administration of the fuel overseer ensure an individual getting additional supplies over and above his normal


allocation if he has a certificate. What we call cushion supplies were granted to help coal distributors to meet the needs of those who have priority certificates either for sickness or old age.
I have no desire to prolong this debate, and the fact that the matter has been raised on the opposite benches does not disturb me one bit. We have tried to sustain the administration and the method and policy pursued by local fuel overseers, and I say that if it is within the realm of possibility to meet the needs of the old people and of the sick, then no stone should be left unturned by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the local overseer or the distributors of coal to see that the requirements of these people are satisfied, because it matters not who suffers so long as they are cared for and given the attention they so richly deserve.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is invariably listened to with the greatest respect and without interruption because of his unparalleled knowledge of the coalmining industry. This problem is not contentious or controversial, but largely administrative. We may have varying opinions on the efficacy of the arrangements made within the nationalised coal industry for producing coal, but I am sure there will be a measure of agreement that there may only be a fixed global or aggregate quantity of coal available for domestic purposes during the course of the next few years.
I received notice only some 10 minutes before this debate commenced, of the subject which was to be raised this evening and I am sure, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I am not able to quote precisely the figures to which I intend to refer. I think I should be correct, to the nearest one million tons, in saying that the amount of coal distributed for domestic purposes in 1938 was 45 million tons and that in 1950 the amount actually distributed for domestic purposes has declined to 30 million tons.

Mr. T. Brown: Due to the rationing.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not think that it was due only to the rationing system, for in fact it is not a rationing system but a

maximum permitted allocation to householders. I shall be referring to that aspect of the problem in one moment. I think that the Minister would agree that the global amount of domestic coal in the United Kingdom has declined by approximately 33⅓ per cent., comparing 1950 with 1938. Not only has the tonnage declined by 33⅓ per cent., but the loss to domestic consumers is much greater due to the presence of an unpredictable amount of dirt, stone, ash and rubbish in the coal. This arises, I believe, although expect some hon. Members will disagree, from the increased mechanisation at the pits and a number of other factors.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) on the benches opposite. He will recall the report which appeared in the Midlands Press to the effect that the chief salvage officer of Wednesbury said that the amount of salvage he collected in the borough had increased very substantially on the preceding 12 months because of the amount of incombustible material delivered as part of the household coal.

Mr. S. N. Evans: And it is due to the fact that the whole of our population are able to buy coal instead of about half of them.

Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps that might be so, but that salvage officer attributed it to the decline in the quality of coal. The second feature to which I am referring is that the number of old people in the United Kingdom has increased by about one million in that period. When I refer to old people, I mean those above 65 years of age, and I am comparing 1950 with 1938. Therefore, the problem has been further aggravated by that increase in the number of old age pensioners.
In introducing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), did so in a way which was entirely non-contentious and uncontroversial in spirit. The problems of my hon. Friend's constituency are very similar to those experienced in my own. My hon. Friend represents a division which is separated from the industrial conurbation of Kidderminster and Stour-port-on-Severn by a distance of only 15 miles. I never attack the Parliamentary Secretary unless I know the full answers in advance myself, and unless I am sure that if I were in the Parliamentary Secretary's shoes I could do much better than


he is doing. The only occasions upon which I have attacked him are those upon which I have granted myself those two premises. This evening I am in a very different position. I am prepared to admit to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is an extraordinarily difficult administrative problem, but it is only administrative and nothing else.
I prefaced my comments by saying that I recognised that we might not expect any large global increase in the amount of domestic coal available in the immediate future. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong in saying that England is divided into two parts, for the purposes of allocating household coal, by an arbitrary line drawn from the Severn to the Wash. Householders are granted 34 cwt. per period south of that line, while those who are north of that line receive 50 cwt. per period. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many householders are getting the maximum south of the arbitrary line and how many are getting it north of the line?
If one multiplies the number of householders south of the line by 34 cwt. and adds to it the result derived by multiplying the number of householders north of the line by 50 cwt., the total aggregation of domestic coal should yield 30 million tons, which is the global figure which the Ministry of Fuel and Power is allocating to the domestic consumers. If it comes to more than that, somebody in the Ministry of Fuel and Power has made a statistical error. If the answer comes to more than 30 million tons, then theoretically the Ministry of Fuel and Power should reduce the maximum permitted allocation to householders north of the line and south of the line. That, theoretically, includes the whole of those old age pensioners. That is the only way to relate the artificiality which we have at present with the reality which we all seek.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary follows my argument. It seems to me to be the gravamen of the problem in this administrative matter which is confronting us at the moment. We are all agreed upon the necessity for trying to help the old, the infirm and the sick with coal supplies. Nobody has mentioned the very young. I believe that fuel overseers have instructions that where there is a child

of less than six months of age, every effort should be made to give the parents sufficient solid fuel to keep the room warm in which the baby is sleeping. That problem, linked to the problem of the aged, has been brought to my attention on dozens of occasions in the last few months.
The hon. Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), and Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred to the part which the coal merchant has to play in this matter. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is quite futile for the medical officer to issue a priority note to the parent of a very young child or to an aged person for an additional allocation of coal, and for the fuel overseer to endorse it, if the recipient of the docket, when he goes to the coal merchant, is told by him in despair, "I have no available coal supplies." The reason why in many cases the merchant has no available supply derives simply from what I believe is the statistical miscalculation arising from the total number of householders in both areas of the country multiplied by the allocations which they are at present entitled to receive.
I believe that the remedy for this administrative problem is not very difficult to find. It cannot be applied this winter, but it might be done next winter. Every fuel overseer ought to be asked to establish with one coal merchant in his area a special priority reserve stock of coal which should be supplied only to old persons and the parents of very young persons. From that cushion, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) so wisely observed, priority issues would be made only in respect of priority dockets that had been issued by the local fuel overseer.
I believe that system might function satisfactorily. It would not result in any over-all increase in the amount of domestic coal consumed, but it would, with a very simple administrative re-arrangement, fulfil the purpose which hon. Members on both sides of the House so ardently wish to see fulfilled, namely, that the old people, the infirm, the sick and the parents of very young persons would be provided with a sufficiency of solid fuel.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, we wish, on both sides of


the House, to raise this issue because, despite any party points that might be made, Members on both sides are interested in the sick, the aged and others getting these supplies. I wish to point out that quite a lot can be done locally. I wish to recount an experience within my own constituency. In Christmas week I had not a lump of coal in my home for five days. We were burning the bottoms of old shell boxes on Christmas Day. I experienced these problems. I was then rung up by the coal merchants in the district. They were threatening to go on strike. In the North Staffordshire area we are living on a coalfield but the position in my division was as bad as the position anywhere in the south of England.
I met 47 coal merchants and heard their case. Many months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), and I met the coal merchants in the town hall of Hanley. As I say, I met my local coal merchants in Kidsgrove, and I found that there was something in the charge that the hon. Member opposite has been making so far as the distribution of supplies were concerned. There is a cushion supply. It is now available. The hon. Member was asking for such a supply but it is already there. There seems to be some timidity, however, on the part of the organisation in the district and I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the point.
Let me explain what happened. After spending a considerable amount of my own money telephoning from one end of Britain to the other, I managed to clear up the situation. There was a fear locally that the stocks there should not be touched. There were people locally gathering coal off the tips and going out into the hedgerows, gathering all kinds of fuel to burn in Christmas week.

Brigadier Clarke: Did the hon. Member say that he would ask a Question in the House?

Mr. Davies: I did not say that. Sometimes there is no time to ask Questions in the House. Labour Members usually get on to the job at once. I did not wait till the end of the Recess. My people were cold during Christmas and so was I, and so I tried to get in touch with the local overseer. The local overseer in the Kidsgrove area did all he possibly could.
When I rang up Birmingham they did all they could and they were very kind. But when I rang Birmingham I was given to understand that at divisional level they did not understand that permission was not being granted at the district level to take in some of the stock at the wharfs for distribution during this bad weather period.
In other words, it is clear to me there was not that co-ordination which there should have been between divisional level and district level at an emergency period regarding the distribution of coal for the sick and aged. In fact I understand that divisional level did not know that district level were refusing to touch the stocks of coal. Eventually we released some thousands of tons of coal for the Kids-grove area and for Biddulph and the Leek district. In that case I wrote direct to Lord Hyndley, and he was kind enough to investigate this matter. It seems to me unfair to throw the burden on the coal merchant for not being able to distribute coal.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting that I was in any way doing that. I should be grateful if he would address his reproofs to the hon. Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), and Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) who were critical of the coal merchants.

Mr. Davies: Those hon. Gentlemen spoke from their own experience. I would not dare to comment on their own experience and so I qualified it. I spent hours with the coal merchants in my district and I am fully aware of this problem.

Mr. Harrison: I attempted to explain that I did not think the coal merchants were in the main responsible. How the hon. Gentleman opposite can suggest that I argued in that way, I do not know.

Mr. Davies: I should not like to have been a coal merchant during those scarcity periods, because I experienced the scarcity in my own home and the blame was being put on the local merchants for lack of distribution.
Can we in this House do something about the distribution of the supplies that we have? It is no good dealing with an imaginary supply. Let us make the


machine work smoothly with the supplies that we have. My criticism from my experiences in the Leek division is: (a) there seems to be a lack of co-ordination during an emergency between divisional and local level so far as the distribution of local supplies is concerned; (b) there seems to be some misunderstanding about the amount of cushion supplies to which a coal merchant is entitled; (c) in my district allocations of coal were cut 40 per cent. during Christmas week. I want to know why that was done at that time of the year when there were stocks at the wharfs which could have been used to give a supply and provide a little warmth and comfort at that festive time. The divisional level seemed to know nothing about the 40 per cent. cut.
Do not let us make party quips about these questions on nationalised industries. The nationalisation of the mines has come to stay, and far from expecting a colossal machine with a capital of £400 million to work smoothly in four years, we should remember, as I said the other day, that it has taken 20 years for I.C.I. to learn its administrative job; and I.C.I. has a capital of only £78 million. A £400 million machine needs a lot of administrative detail and at the moment it is working pragmatically. In this House we should evolve some kind of formula by which, not carping criticism, but constructive criticism from either side of the House could be brought to bear on the points at fault, so that corrections can be made. That at the moment, especially on the issue of allocation of supplies, does not appear to be available to hon. Members. They must act at the local level and work through to the division. I have nothing but praise for the promptness with which, at Birmingham, they answered my difficulties and helped me with the allocation of supplies for the Leek district.

8.40 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has shown clearly that the whole of the coal maladministration this winter has been due to the Government. There has been a cushion; there has been plenty of coal. The only drawback is that the Government did not know how to distribute it properly. That is what he has said. That may be so in his district.
In my district the difficulty is more the price the people have to pay for the coal. Before coming to that point, I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I will not give him any sums to do. I shall not ask him to multiply 50 over the Border with 30 below the Border. In June or July of last year, I remember his trying to tell us that petrol at 3s. a gallon was really cheaper than it used to be when it was 2s. a gallon. He made a very good effort then, and no doubt tonight he will succeed in telling us that we have had plenty of coal but we did not really know it.
Since the nationalisation of the coal industry, a number of people in the south have felt that we should have coal in the southern region at the same price as is paid by those who live near the mines and the pitheads. People think that now we own not only the coal mines—which is a doubtful pleasure—but the railways, there is no reason why we should pay more in my constituency of Portsmouth than the people pay in, say, Nottingham. There is good weight behind that argument. The old age pensioner and the war widow in the south get no more money than the same type of people who live in Nottingham or the coalfield areas. Why should they pay more?
It may be said that coal has always been more expensive in the south because of the rail charges. That may be true of coal before nationalisation; but there are many examples of private enterprise, including cement, sugar, and other articles, which are distributed throughout the British Isles at a flat rate. It is no more expensive to buy cement in Edinburgh than it is in Portsmouth. I see no reason why my constituents should pay more for this commodity. Not only are the people asked to pay more, but such industries as we have in the south are at a similar disadvantage.
The result is to make the cost of living in the south more expensive than it is in the north. The increase in the cost of coal by 4s. 2d. a ton, which was mentioned in the last debate, will put up the cost of transport, and once more the cost of living will rise. I should like to draw attention to the reasons given for the increase in the cost of coal. This extract from the OFFICIAL REPORT makes interesting reading. When the Minister of Fuel and Power was speaking in the


debate on 1st February, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) intervened:
We are told that while imported coal is being unloaded at one part of a dock, at another part of the dock coal is being loaded for other parts of the world, such as the Argentine, at a lower rate. It that true?
He got the answer:
Yes, it is true. A very small quantity of coal is being exported.
When the Minister was asked how much coal was being exported, he replied:
About 100,000 tons a week.
He did not say for how many weeks this had been done; and 100,000 tons of coal a week for 52 weeks is quite a lot of coal. The Minister added:
It is a very low rate.
Later he said:
The Government have agreed that this increase will operate from Monday next. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1115.]
Is it not a fact that that was due to exporting coal when there was no cushion? If there was one, it must be blamed on distribution; if not, then it was due to the fact that the Government exported this coal without proper foresight and regard to the country's requirements this winter. Finally, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the question of a flat rate throughout the country. I understand that we are to get a flat rate for electricity and gas before many years have passed, and I ask him whether it is not time that the Government produced a flat rate for coal.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: I should not have risen to intervene in this debate but for the fact that the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) spoke about the need for priorities and accused the Government of failing to face up to this question. A week or 10 days ago, a Prayer was moved by the Opposition to annul regulations dealing with advertisement lighting. The Minister of Fuel and Power had introduced the regulations, of course, in order to see that coal was not wasted on anything that was not actually necessary. On that occasion, hon. Members opposite were very concerned that the glaring lights of London should still be kept on, notwithstanding the fact that it might mean that we should have to face a shortage of fuel for the fac-

tories, which would mean loss of production and unemployment.
It seems to me that, while this has been a non-party debate generally, it is necessary, when hon. Members introduce points of that kind, that they should face up to the real issue, which is whether or not, with limited supplies which cannot possibly meet all our commitments and demands, we can in any way improve upon the present method of distribution. I think that those hon. Members who have spoken so feelingly and knowingly on the hardships of the sick, aged and young children are doing a service for the constituencies of all hon. Members, as cases of that kind are to be found everywhere.
I should like to be assured that, when the coal merchant receives a doctor's note or a note from the fuel overseer, it is possible there and then for him to meet that note by means of a special supply and without taking coal from some other regular customer, who is probably just as badly off and waiting for his own supply. I am told that that is not so, and that it is not always possible for coal merchants to meet their regular commitments and at the same time to meet the claims put forward as the result of a note from a doctor or from a local fuel overseer.
I do not think it would mean many thousands of tons spread over the country for stocks of that kind to be available to meet emergencies. If it could be arranged for one coal merchant, or a group of merchants, in an area to have a stock of 10, 20, 30 or even 50 tons of coal available, to be supplied only on the issue of a medical note or a note from a local fuel overseer, I think it would go some way towards meeting the hardship cases and personal difficulties which we know exist. I hope it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to the various points which have been put forward in a most helpful manner in this debate, in order that the difficulties experienced this winter shall be avoided next year.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Price: I want to contribute two points to this very beneficial debate. First, I want to reinforce what has already been said about the difficulties of the aged and the sick. This question has been brought to my


notice twice in the last few days; first, last week, when I happened to be having lunch with a clergyman, and, secondly, in my post today, when I received a letter from an old age pensioner complaining about the price of coal and the difficulty which she and others in her position have in finding the money to pay for the extra coal they need during cold spells.
The clergyman told me that he was genuinely distressed at the number of times during the last five or six weeks that he had been called in to administer the Last Sacrament to an elderly sick person who was dying in a room in which the fire was little bigger than a candle. The problem divided itself into two parts. Sometimes, he said, they just could not get the coal, but, at others, even if they could get it, they could not pay for it.
I imagine this is a problem not so much for the hon. Gentleman who is to reply as for his right hon. Friend the Minister for National Insurance, but I feel that the possibility of helping these people to acquire the coal they need should be investigated. After all, we help the old age pensioners to acquire cigarettes and tobacco at a reduced price. We give them special coupons to enable them to obtain those commodities at below normal cost. Why cannot we do it in the case of coal? It seems to me it would not be impossible to work out some such scheme.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very interesting point, but I would point out with regard to aged people or people in very poor circumstances, and certainly in the case of aged old age pensioners where there is only the pension of 26s. a week for a single person and 42s. a week for a man and wife, that there is an augmentation of the pension in respect of rent and coal up to something over 50s. a week.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member is tempting me along political lines which I do not mean to follow. I am not talking about the cost of living, but I am sure he knows that old age pensioners, even with the increments to which he has referred, find it extremely difficult to make both ends meet. Coal has just been increased in price, thus making matters more difficult still. Surely, the aged sick

are entitled to a little comfort in their last few days. The same clergyman told me that in some cases the doctor had said that if the patient could have been kept warm, he or she might have lived a little longer. I am not suggesting that he would have recovered, but I was certainly given to understand that it might have helped him to live a little longer; it was not put higher than that.
A problem which exists in my constituency, and one which I am sure exists in the constituencies of a good many hon. Members opposite, is in connection with large blocks of municipal flats where the storage of coal is very difficult. I would like to tell the Minister of an instance which occurred in my constituency early in January. I received a telephone call from a man who lived in one of a block of over 900 L.C.C. flats. He was a married man with a wife and two children. His wife and children were all ill with influenza and had not had a fire for a fortnight because he could not get any coal. He asked me if I could help him to get some.
It is really surprising how difficult it is to help in such a case; one comes up against a maze of regulations. I got on to my own coalman, but he could not help because the man was not registered with him. I asked if he could have some from my cellar, but I was told that would be illegal because the allocation was made not to me, but to my household, and that therefore it would be illegal to transfer it to anybody else. However, I eventually solved the problem, but I shall not tell the House how I solved it as, otherwise, the Minister might send somebody along to see me. I warn the Minister that if he does, I shall say to whoever comes along, "I don't understand your questions." I suggest that when we have a severe spell of weather and coal is in short supply, instructions should be issued to regional and local coal offices for the regulations to be administered with the maximum of flexibility.
I should like to carry a little further the matter I referred to earlier. My friend the coal merchant told me that he would have gone quite willingly to the coal dump at Greenwich on Saturday morning, loaded his lorry with 60 sacks of coal and taken it to the estate and delivered it had he been allowed to do


so, but he would not have been allowed. Over 900 families on that estate, as far as I can see, had no coal delivered for a fortnight in that cold spell. Surely that calls for a relaxation of the regulations.
Would it not be possible during such a period—and we are told that such periods are likely to recur during the coming years—to issue an order throughout the fuel distribution system to put an emergency plan into operation? I am sure that with proper safeguards a system could be devised to allow a coal merchant to go into the coal dump and draw 60 sacks and deliver them to the estate to help these families who otherwise would have no coal at all. I am not an expert on this subject but such a scheme ought to be possible and I am sure that if it is possible I can rely upon the Minister to give it his serious consideration.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Burke: May I ask two questions? The first is whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us if a doctor's certificate is really essential in every case. There are cases of people suffering from rheumatism who are chronically ill but who are not being attended by a doctor. They are entitled to an allocation but they cannot always go to the inconvenience of calling a doctor to provide a certificate. Are the regulations sufficiently flexible to allow them to dispense with a doctor's certificate?
My second question arises out of a case brought to my notice this morning of two people aged, I think, 79 and 80 who were quite ill. Their vicar called on them and found them without a fire. He applied to the fuel overseer on their behalf and he was told by the officer that they could not have coal, although their infirmity was recognised, because they were not in bed. I should like to know whether that ruling is part of the regulation. If the officer was wrong the matter ought to be put right. If the fuel overseer was right, the regulations ought to be altered.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I think everybody will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), has rendered a service by raising this subject. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—

Mr. Manuel: Did the right hon. Gentleman take a note of the first line of my speech?

Mr. Lloyd: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with some care. I cannot say I have an annotated version of it in my pocket. What I was about to draw attention to was not his first words but his last words, when he was working himself into a state of excitement about something my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, had not said at all. Finally, in an excess of great enthusiasm, he declared that the Socialist Government and the Socialist Party had made a jolly good job of coal. He seemed to take great offence that we should bring any criticism against the Government, but we have our duties as an Opposition and this House is historically a place for the airing of the grievances of the subject against the Executive. I do not know that there is a greater grievance one can have in the midst of winter than that a large number of His Majesty's subjects should be in a considerable state of hardship because of lack of fuel.

Mr. Harold Davies: And so were many Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lloyd: They are included amongst His Majesty's loyal subjects, I hope. Therefore, I think hon. Members opposite must allow me to say that if we are to get this problem into focus, as I think the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), said earlier, we must look at it in the larger context of the coal situation, at least from one or two aspects.
We are really in a crisis within a crisis. In the autumn we had the coal crisis approaching, and apparently the Government did not foresee it, but we are now in a second crisis as a result of their continual lateness in taking measures to try to meet the crisis. We can see that in regard to big matters and small ones. In the largest matters we see it reflected in the importing of American coal. The Government took that decision late. They could not get the ships quickly enough, and the result is that, although the Government told us time and again that the real crisis of the year would be in February and March, not all this coal, which is being specifically imported to help us to meet this crisis which the


Government so lately realised was to come upon us, is going to be here by that time. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted the other day that some of it will not arrive until April—some of it, I fear, not until towards the end of April.
In the small matters, we find that the speed with which the train services had suddenly to be cancelled by the Railway Executive led to the most farcical results. For example, a train which ran between Birmingham and Wolverhampton was cancelled. Somebody forgot it had been cancelled and turned up at the station to find that it was still running. It was known locally as the "ghost train." It turned out that the cancellations had to be done so quickly that, in fact, the train had to run for certain service reasons, although of course the public were not allowed on it.
On the question of priorities, it was my duty as Secretary for Mines at the outbreak of the war to bring in this system of priorities and to get the local fuel overseers appointed. I should think that the system which the hon. Gentleman will describe to us tonight is probably the same, basically, as that which it was my duty to establish all those years ago at the beginning of the war, with proper arrangements for the sick, the aged and other special cases. The House will probably agree that the local fuel overseers during all these years have done a very good job, but let us look at the conditions in which they have to do this job at present.
There is a system of priorities, whether an informal system laid down by the Government or whether at a later stage formally announced and enforced. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt disagree with me if I am wrong, but broadly speaking the Government above all, have to see that the public utilities, such as gas works and electricity works, do not fail if they can possibly avoid it. Therefore, the first stage of priority must be given to them, and is. I think it will be agreed that industry must come after the big public utilities. Up to the Christmas Recess, there was no case known of any works which were actually shut down through lack of fuel. I had a case in my own division in Birmingham of a factory which was going to shut down

within three days. I telegraphed to the Minister and I am glad to say that he acted with some speed, and enough coal came from somewhere so that the works did not have to close down.
The point I want to make is that the person who comes at the end of the queue in this system of priorities is the domestic consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has given some figures of the tremendous reduction in the amount of coal which goes to the domestic consumer—about 15 million tons a year—as compared with before the war. This, incidentally, shows that we should treat with reserve statements which have been made from the opposite benches about not being able to buy coal in the past. Somebody, at any rate, bought the coal, and they were not all rich people. There is much less coal now going to the domestic consumers, and in a way we may say that, with all this system of priorities, when an extra squeeze has occurred, then, until the last 15 per cent. cut on industry, it has been the housewife who has taken the squeeze. If I may use a rough phrase, I would say that the Government are riding the fuel crisis on the back of the British housewife—and that is administrative failure.
When it comes to dealing with the sick and the aged, within the shortages of the domestic consumer, I believe that there exists a perfectly good administrative scheme. The only trouble is that the whole situation is impossible. When I was in Birmingham during the Recess—and I expect it is the same in other parts of the country—merchants told me that, on the whole, they were receiving enough coal to supply about two-thirds of the allocations to domestic consumers. We can see from that how much is the shortage. I believe that the local fuel overseers, and, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), the merchants themselves, are in a terribly difficult position in the existing situation.
I did not know, any more than did other hon. Members, that this subject was to be raised tonight, but it so happens that I have been making quite a few inquiries about it during the Recess and since. What struck me as a result of my inquiries was this. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the


House, apart from those who have made a study of it, or the country as a whole—except for those who are suffering—fully appreciate the degree of the hardship which has been caused to the ordinary people throughout the country by the coal shortage this winter. In the homes it is going on quietly, and because it has become a sort of chronic condition the Press do not seem to pay much attention to it. If that sort of thing had happened before the war, there would have been a great outcry. Consumers have been squeezed a bit and squeezed a bit more and have felt it terribly, but they have rather taken it as a sort of normal accompaniment to winter under the present Government.
I was struck by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. Price), who did something which we are all very shy of doing. He introduced the question whether somebody had or had not died as a result of these conditions. Nobody likes to do that, but that is what my hon. Friend did, because he mentioned what a doctor had told him. It will be understood that that is something which none of us likes to do, because we naturally feel it would be taking advantage of the situation in order to build up the case too much. But I am not convinced that we are right in our attitude. I am not sure that it does not happen. I think we ought to be as concrete as we can in our examples, and I want to tell the House about some cases which I discovered in Birmingham during the Recess.
These are not necessarily cases which have been taken to the local fuel overseer, because we must realise that not all the old people put their cases to the overseer. That happens when a Member of Parliament comes along or when some other influential person realises the position, or when a doctor takes up the matter. But some of the old people are not quite so forward in putting their case, as is well known; in some cases they may not have the physical energy to do so.
First, here is the case of a lady and her husband in Sheldon Heath Road, Birmingham. They are old-age pensioners, 78 and 79 years old. The wife is suffering from arthritis. They were without coal—and I am now talking about the middle of January. Next, here is the case of a lady in Newborough Road who lived with her mother, who was aged

79 years. She wrote, "We have no coal whatever and none will be delivered for another 14 days at the earliest."

Mr. Harrison: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that there is not only the question of the coal supply in Birmingham, but that in the last two or three months we also have had one of the worst transport problems in the country in regard to traffic into Birmingham. The transport problem also affects the situation.

Mr. Lloyd: But the hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that this kind of thing did not happen in the old days, whatever transport difficulties there may or may not have been in connection with the situation in Birmingham.

Mr. Harrison: They are bringing more coal into Birmingham to the factories than ever before. Birmingham in the last 10 years has grown considerably, and there are not the siding facilities there for getting in the coal.

Mr. Lloyd: It has grown no more in proportion in the last 10 years than in the 10 years before. It has been steadily growing continuously for the last 100 years, and for the last 50 years at a very great pace, and yet somehow the facilities for the production and the transport of coal for that city kept pace with that development until recently.
Let me give another case. It is that of a lady who is bedridden in a downstairs room and who should have a fire day and night. She has been granted an extra allowance of 2 cwt. for the period from October to April. It seems rather small, but I am not making any complaint of that. But that was in the middle of January.
Since then, one of the most notable facts about the coal situation—no doubt, very much welcomed by the Parliamentary Secretary, and indeed by everybody here—has been the mildness of the weather. There was a sharp cold spell in the early autumn. In a way that was a concealed help to the Government, in that it stimulated them to realise what the possibilities might be at an early stage of the cold winter. Since Christmas, and in January, it has been mild. For example, the average daily mean temperature for the first four weeks—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentle-


man must have been in the south of France."]—of the year was 40.8 F.—slightly lower than last year, but five degrees higher than that in January, 1947, which preceded the last major fuel crisis. I think that probably the hon. Gentleman would agree that five degrees of higher temperature averaged over a week means a saving of something like 160,000 tons of coal, which, of course, in only four weeks does add up to a tremendous total.
Therefore, I think this mild weather since the turn of the year has done more to help the fuel position in this country than any of these measures that the Government have so far taken. But what is particularly disturbing is that even though we have had this mild weather, the latest information that I have at the present time is just as bad as that which I have given for January. This is information which I received today. It just happened that I got it today.

Mr. T. Brown: From King's Norton?

Mr. Lloyd: This is from Birmingham still. I am sure, however, that it is typical of the rest of the country. Many hon. Members have given instances which, I think, are as bad as those I am giving. Of course, I am agreeing with the hon. Member for Ince in this one particular point, that people must not run away with the idea that it is only in the south of England that these bad conditions obtain. After all, we in Birmingham, like people in other places, are on the very edge of a great coalfield; yet nevertheless we are getting these conditions—

Mr. T. Brown: Of temperature?

Mr. Lloyd: There may be districts in the north where the temperature is even—

Mr. Brown: Higher?

Mr. Lloyd: —colder than in Birmingham, but we are in the middle and in an average position, and therefore, I think we are, on the whole, representative of the country.
Here is a case of an old age pensioner who has been without coal for two weeks. I am told
Mr. Jones tells me that his wife is often ill, and up to the present has been in bed

for five weeks. The bedroom is heated with a small gas fire and that, together with their bit of cooking, burns 3s. worth of gas per day, or 21s. worth per week. They have no coal at present, and so he stays up in the bedroom with his wife to try to get a little warmth. They are both elderly, and their three grown-up sons go out anywhere at night where they can get warm.
Here is another case of an old age pensioner without coal. This one has been bedridden since November. That case has been taken up with the fuel overseer. There is the case of a Mrs. Green who has been without coal for three weeks. She has four children, and one child under 12 months old is ill. Though they have done everything, they have not been able to get coal. Another lady, ill with 'flu, has no coal. I will not weary the House with more examples, but those are the sort of complaints coming from all over the great City of Birmingham, upon which we depend so much for our exports and also for our re-armament.
There is no doubt in my mind, having discussed this with the coal merchants, that the lack of coal has been one of the causes of a considerable increase in the consumption of electricity and gas. There can be no doubt about it at all. In the Recess, in my division I was met all the time by people who, in discussing the coal situation, told me they had no coal but they had been lighting the gas oven, leaving the oven door open, sitting in the room and trying to keep warm in that way. The result was that they had to put so much money in the gas meter—these were all working-class people, I may say—that the gas meter had got choked up and a man had to be sent from the corporation to unchoke the gas meter in order that they could resume this unfortunate improvised, socialised method of keeping warm.
I do not want to continue this further by talking too much about coke, but the coke queues at the Saltley and Nechells Gas Works have become a sort of feature of Birmingham life; people come there with prams, boxes on wheels and stand in queues. The reason undoubtedly is that carburetted water gas and petroleum have been used to help out with the coke, and there was no coke left. Somebody in the Ministry of Fuel and Power—I cannot tell whom—has brought down some coke from the north-western district. Perhaps I ought not to reveal that, as there might be some trouble over


it, because I believe they are a bit short there.
This is a serious human problem, and I should just like to mention to the House an incident which took place in Birmingham, which if it were not tragic would be rather humorous. Last Thursday night the Birmingham police received a message to say that some people were stealing a road in Garrison Lane. The police went out and found that this was a wood block road, and that in order to repair the road workmen had been taking up the wood blocks. I gather that visibility was not particularly good and people from the district apparently descended upon the road and in almost no time the road blocks had disappeared. Although in describing this incident the Birmingham Press was extremely careful to say "It was alleged that fuel seekers had stolen the wood blocks," it was fairly clear that the suspicion was that, owing to the fuel shortage and people being very cold, the road blocks disappeared. The police came and there were still a few road blocks left; the police gave it up and went away, and the people came back and took the rest of the road blocks. One of the workmen said "The raiders must have worked like Trojans to take away so many blocks."

Mr. Yates: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that in the City of Birmingham there is a widespread shortage of the kind he has indicated? Surely the Members of Parliament for the city had a long conference with the fuel overseer, and people in need through illness and other special cases had their applications dealt with. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is quite fantastic.

Mr. Lloyd: It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman should take that line. It is true that some of the Socialist Members for Birmingham had a conference with the local fuel overseer, although they had not been particularly active in bringing the matter up in this House at an earlier stage when it might have been useful to do so. So far as I am aware, the local fuel overseer in Birmingham has been doing a thoroughly good job in the very difficult circumstances in which he has been placed.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman

not aware that the supply of fuel to Birmingham for domestic allocation has been slightly more than last year? I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to convey the impression that the circumstances in Birmingham have been growing more difficult, whereas they are precisely the same as they have been for many years.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take the responsibility for regarding it as something which is reasonably satisfactory that conditions which have existed in Birmingham this year have been more or less the same as those which have existed over the last few years under his Government, he is welcome to that view. I tell him that the situation in Birmingham last year, and in many other parts of the country, was extremely bad for the domestic consumer, which reinforces my argument that we are getting into the habit of accepting this chronic under-supply to the domestic consumer as something normal under the rule of the Government supported by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Manuel: What would the right hon. Gentleman do about it?

Mr. Yates: In all cases of illness, the applicants have been dealt with, and I have been assured that their cases have been met. It is misleading the House to attempt to suggest that people are suffering in a widespread manner in this way.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to give his opinion, and I have given way to enable him to do so. I take an entirely different view of the seriousness of this matter. I think that hon. Members who represent Birmingham constituencies would be doing a very wrong thing in representing the affairs of their constituencies if they gave the impression that there was not grave hardship to the domestic consumers in the great City of Birmingham at the present time.
If the hon. Gentleman takes the view that he has dealt with all the cases brought to him, I am sure that he has, but the cases I have been giving to the House tonight are not cases which we waited to have brought to us. We have been visiting the homes, not from the


point of view of the coal situation only. Our Unionist workers have been in the homes to see if there is any assistance that we can give to the people. We take the view that in present circumstances, when people are so much dependent on the actions of the Government, we are doing a useful thing, particularly with regard to old people who cannot get out much themselves, in going to visit them ourselves and taking the initiative. This process brings to light many real grievances which may not necessarily come to a Member of Parliament in his postbag.

Mr. Manuel: This is a matter with regard to sick and elderly people. Do I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the local fuel overseer has been approached by these individuals in these dire circumstances and that no visits have been made by the overseer in an attempt to relieve the position?

Mr. Lloyd: I was careful to point out that in some of these cases there may have been an approach and in others not. I was concerned to say that while I accepted that the administrative arrangements were good, in actual practice there are many people who are not being reached by the administrative mechanism, through one reason or another.
I conclude by saying that the hon. Member for Ince made a point—I know that he is usually very fair—which I should like to take up with him. He was inclined to blame the coal merchants because he said that no one ought to take on more customers than they could actually deal with. In principle, I entirely agree with him.

Mr. T. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has referred twice to me. I accept his references in the good humour and fairness which he always applies. To me merchants and distributors are two different sections of the community. We have very few merchants in the north of England; they are nearly all distributors. I repeat that no distributor of coal ought to accept more registered customers than he can supply until he has taken steps with the fuel overseer to see that he gets a cushion allocation to meet their needs.

Mr. Lloyd: It may be that there is a slight difference in different parts of the country. What I am thinking of in

Birmingham and the Midlands, as well as in other parts of the country, is where the person distributing the coal gets it from the colliery or at the opencast working. The point I want to make is the difficulty of a merchant in present circumstances knowing what his position is. He cannot be sure of getting the coal he ought to be getting in order to satisfy his customers. It is really quite a fight for some of these small people to get their supplies. A man may send his son out to the colliery near to Birmingham to get the coal, but quite often he has to come back without any coal and go back again the next day with his lorry at about 5.30 in the morning. This is not only a question of altruism, although they wish to supply these people; it is their business, and they cannot be sure from day to day how much coal they will get.

Mr. T. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in what he is saying. Exactly the same thing takes place in the north-west of Lancashire, which is in the heart of one of the largest coal-fields in the country. The coal distributors do exactly the same thing. They attend at the yard or at the wharf for their allocation of coal. The coal may not be available, due to a transport breakdown or a shortage of railway wagons, with the result that they have to go back the next day. That fortifies the point I am making, that no coal distributor ought to accept more customers than he can supply.

Mr. Lloyd: But the man does not know what coal he will get until he actually receives it, and therefore he does not know how many people he will be able to supply. However, I think the House can see the point that is being made on both sides.
I want to put forward a suggestion for consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary, although I cannot be sure whether it is capable of being worked out in practice. The summer stocking scheme is obviously a very good scheme, but every one has not got storage capacity. A great number of people in Birmingham have storage capacity, both in the old central areas and in the new housing areas, and thank goodness we are not a city with a great number of flats. I am not considering the sick for the moment, because sickness is something that usually comes on quite suddenly. I am thinking of the old age pensioners.
What can be done from the practical point of view to help the old age pensioners who need assistance? Is there any possibility of these people having the financial resources with which to do this stocking up in the summer? I have questioned both the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of National Insurance with a view to seeing whether it could be arranged for the assistance boards to make a supplementary allowance to these old people in respect of the increased price of coal. I suggest that it would be a very good thing for the country and for the old people if they could do a bit of stocking up in the summer.
It would mean that an administrative scheme would have to be worked out by which they could get an extra allowance in the summer. There would, of course, have to be safeguards. But, would it not be possible to enable them to pay for the stocking up of coal in the summer? I think it would be in the interests of the Ministry, as well as being useful for the old people, if we could perform this small act of alleviation. It would be a rather complicated matter to work out, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider it.

9.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who earlier spoke to me and asked me if I would mind his raising this matter and if I would be in my place. I undertook to be here. I understood that the debate was to deal with the question of priority deliveries and deliveries based upon medical certificates. However, we have gone very wide and I do not propose to wind up this debate as though it were a Supply Day or one of our coal debates; although I confess I am very tempted to do so because of the thoroughly dishonest speech of the right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), who wound up for the Opposition.
I say it was thoroughly dishonest, because as an ex-Secretary for Mines he should have known a lot more about this debate than he gave the impression of knowing. Instead of raising the cases which he said he had received when he was in his constituency, presumably from

his agent, if he had taken the necessary steps those cases would have been dealt with, and the people today would have had their coal instead of being without. He only wanted to make cheap publicity in Birmingham out of people's hardship. He only wanted to use these people's cases as a weapon against the Government.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Robens: I am not finished yet. The right hon. Gentleman can come in later. I was interested to hear him say at the beginning of his speech that my hon. Friends were making this a political issue. Then he talks about queues at the gas works as though they were something new. When he and his right hon. Friends were in power the queues were at the labour exchanges and not at the gas works. I do not want to be controversial about this at all, and but for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman I had no intention of being so. I do, however, regard it as thoroughly dishonest for him to say what he did say. It was also interesting to observe that my hon. Friend the Member for Lady-wood (Mr. Yates) said that when constituents made their complaints to him, he took their cases to the local fuel overseers and had them attended to. The fuel overseer is the only man who can do anything about it and the right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. He does not, however, do that, but he brings his cases to the House.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I am continually in touch with the authorities in regard to the alleviation of cases of the kind, which were the purpose of my visit, and though the hon. Gentleman is entitled to use the strong words of controversy, he is not entitled to say that I do not want to help these people.

Mr. Robens: I am entitled to judge the right hon. Gentleman by his actions and his words in this House tonight, and I say it comes ill from him to charge my hon. Friends, when they have got their cases dealt with by the only person who can do anything about it. The right hon. Gentleman preferred to raise the matter here, and I believe he raised it not in the desire or in the spirit of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but to make this a matter of political controversy. If the right hon. Gen-


tleman really wants that, we can have a day for this matter, but, because of the way in which this debate was raised and because of the manner in which I was approached earlier today, I do not think he was entitled to turn it into a political and controversial subject.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a lot of things which have nothing to do with the matter we are discussing. He talked about American coal coming in April and said that that would not be much help. As an ex-Secretary for Mines he ought to know something about building up stocks and how we deal with summer stocks. He knows perfectly well that the coal from America will be of great advantage. The right hon. Gentleman need not try to wriggle out of it now. What he in fact said was that this American coal in April would be no use, and I say that he did not know his job as Secretary for Mines or else he was trying to hoodwink the House tonight.

Mr. Lloyd: There are limits to the extent to which the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to misrepresent me. I said that the Government had always taken the line that the acute crisis of the winter would be in February and March, and I pointed out it was naturally desirable to get the maximum amount of American coal to meet the crisis this winter. I always believed that this coal should be brought in for the winter crisis, and I argued that in coming in April, it would not help that crisis much.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman is an ex-Secretary for Mines. He claimed tonight that he was the originator of the scheme. I should imagine that he knows more about it than to make that statement. He knows perfectly well that the end winter stock position is a very important—or does he? I wonder whether he does. At least if he did know, he would also know perfectly well that American coal in April was extremely valuable.

Squadron Leader Burden: I should like to ask the Minister to explain the position and to say whether the only time one is entitled to expect a delivery of coal for household use is when there is a case of sickness or of old age in the family. That is what the Minister seems to imply.

Mr. Robens: The Minister has not said that yet. I have not yet even started to reply to the debate. I have only been trying to put the right hon. Gentleman right on one or two of his facts. When I have finished with the right hon. Gentleman the rest of the debate will be quite peaceful, as far as I am concerned. I think it has been a very interesting debate and the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter. I am certain from what I have heard in this House as to the procedure to be adopted to deal with hard cases, that I shall be able to show that they can be dealt with.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to be an expert, because he is an ex-Secretary for Mines. In my humble opinion he has used tonight's debate for a pure, political joy-ride instead of dealing with the real matter that we were supposed to discuss. For example, what had the railway trains that had been cancelled to do with this matter? He knows that I am not the Minister responsible for railways. It was one of the right hon. Gentleman's pleasing little bits that he put in, in order to make his own side rather pleased and smile because they have not a lot to smile about in these days.
The right hon. Gentleman wanted to rally the housewives of this country to his side and so he made great play—very dramatic—with this squeezing of housewives. It was a very excellent show. It ought to be shown at the Palladium or somewhere like that, where it would be greatly appreciated by the audience. The right hon. Gentleman will not face facts. What he had to say tonight was not really new. I have said in this House not once, but many times, that the more one looks at the total availability of the coal of this country the more it is clear that the job of the Ministry of Fuel and Power is to allocate the coal so as to keep industry going.
The first thing one must do is to keep industry busy—the power stations, the gas industry and industry generally, export, bunkers, and so on. It is clear, and I have said so before, that the housewife and the domestic market are at the end of the queue. It is unfortunate that it is so. What is the alternative? The alternative is robbing industry to save millions of tons of coal—being warm at home, and


out of work. There is no other alternative.

Mr. Nabarro: There is another alternative, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, and that is greater efficiency in the utilisation of coal in industry.

Mr. Robens: I would not say that by greater efficiency in the use of coal we could not save this country many millions of tons, but that is a long-term matter. The fact remains that that is our choice. It is very little realised in this country that today we burn more coal than ever before in our history. More industry and greater productivity are the reasons. If we take large quantities of coal from industry, it inevitably means that while we might help the domestic market we should rob industry, which would not be able to work full time.

Brigadier Clarke: Why then export?

Mr. Robens: We have had many debates on coal in this House. No one has ever disagreed with the general contention that we require the production of very large extra quantities of coal every year. I hope that we shall go on requiring more and more each year because if we do, and if we use it efficiently, British industry will be on the upgrade.
I turn to the principal matters with which this debate is concerned, namely, what arrangements are made to prevent hardship either in the case of old people or people who are ill and need extra warmth. I wonder if the House realises just what the general scheme of things is in relation to coal allocations in the domestic field? Do they know, for example, that from the point when the allocation is made globally by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, it is the merchants' own organisations which take charge? I do not think that that point is sufficiently well known in the country.
One must pay tribute to the merchants for this work that they do. They have the house coal scheme, and it is officered by the merchants themselves. We are indebted to very many men in all parts of the country, busy business men in the coal trade, who do this work voluntarily in many regions. They are first class people whom I have met many

times during the time I have been at the Ministry of Fuel and Power. It is a good thing that the final allocation of coal should rest with the merchants themselves. Every individual case must be different from another, and only the merchant who is serving is really in a position to say what the precise requirements are.
It is perfectly true that there must be, in addition to that, a machine which can meet hard cases. In the first place, therefore, the Ministry allocate the global amount of coal for the whole country. The house coal scheme, which is the merchants' scheme and is a merchant-operated scheme, then allocates those supplies or rather breaks down that total and supplies each merchant with an allocation of coal. In making allocations under the house coal scheme account is first taken of the number of registered consumers and then the figure is weighted by the amount involved in licences in the previous period. So a merchant who has had a number of licences during the previous period, has his coal supplies added to by reason of that fact.
In addition to that, there is a certain amount of coal known as cushion coal, which is available to be shifted about from week to week into areas in case of an emergency. It is not possible to move cushion coal to the extent of a ton here and a ton there. It is for an emergency within an area. For example, if for some reason or other Birmingham was suddenly without coal, the cushion coal would have to be brought in by all sorts of methods, using not only normal methods of transport but road transport, etc., in order to meet the emergency. There was, for example, a case when the Thames overflowed its banks and flooded an enormous number of houses. That was an emergency. There was no question about not getting coal to the people concerned to enable them to dry out their homes. Cushion coal was used in that area to meet that emergency.
In addition there are two kinds of certificates which are issued by the local fuel overseer, and any person is entitled to go to him if they are in difficulty about their coal supplies. There are two certificates. One is for the person who needs a quick supply; in other words, in a case where they are completely out of coal and what


is required is an immediate supply to keep things going. It may not be additional to the maximum permitted quantity, but it does mean that if the consumer is without coal, the local fuel overseer is enabled to give a priority certificate and the merchant has to deliver quickly the supply of coal for that person.

Mr. Angus Maude: Is there any sanction on that? I am not clear about that. Is there anything to secure that the merchant does in fact do it.

Mr. Robens: Yes, I am coming to that. The second certificate is a licence which enables the consumer to buy coal over and above the maximum permitted quantity.
How are these priority certificates given? They are usually given on medical grounds but it is not necessary to have a medical certificate. The local fuel overseer, knowing the facts of the case, is enabled to use his discretion in connection with the issue of a certificate. It is obviously to his advantage in making the decision if there is in existence a medical certificate; but there is nothing in the regulations that he should not give a priority certificate merely because a medical certificate has not been forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know if there was anything in the regulations which said that elderly persons should not have additional quantities unless they were bedridden. That is not accurate. The local overseer is able to issue coal to old people where their circumstances warrant it.

Miss Irene Ward: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what actually is the age limit? In our part of the world I have been told that one has to be 80 before being regarded as old.

Mr. Robens: I think that would be quite wrong. No one has laid down in the regulations that it should be one age or another, and there is an enormous amount of discretion given to the local fuel overseer. I should have thought that "elderly" people were people who were not working because of their age; and as a consequence were at home all day and would naturally use more fuel than persons of the same age who were out at work all day.
Here is a really interesting point about the regulations which have been

laid down and which makes it clear that every merchant in the country knows about these regulations. I have here in my hand a circular sent out by the director-general a the house coal distribution scheme to all the registered coal merchants so that they are well aware of what happens. For example, the first certificate which can be given by the local fuel overseer is a certificate in order that a supply should go into a home where coal is urgently needed because they have not any coal. The amount usually is not more than two cwt. for an emergency and the certificate must be honoured by the coal merchant within 48 hours. People need not wait three weeks or since last September—

Mr. Angus Maude: If the coal is there.

Mr. Robens: I am coming to that point. The coal merchant must make delivery within 48 hours in every case of that kind where coal is required. If the consumer is not suffering hardship—as in the case of people who are ill in bed, who have a small stock of coal which clearly will not last out long enough or for the length of the illness—then coal must be delivered within seven days. This is rather interesting from the point of view of the flexibility of the scheme. In normal circumstances a merchant may only supply a registered consumer. If the merchant with whom the person is registered cannot carry out the delivery, in the first case within 48 hours and in the second within seven days, what are his instructions from the house coal scheme?
Where a merchant is unable to make any priority delivery within the specified time he must arrange through the depot manager for another merchant to do so.
In those cases, therefore, the other merchant who is able to supply may do so, although he is supplying a consumer who is not one of his registered customers.
Administratively we have met the situation. All that remains is the hon. Gentleman's interjection, "If the coal is there." While it may be that, from time to time, a depot may have cleared its coal, there is always coal in the pipeline. The period of being without coal may be one of a few hours or a day, but usually not much more than that. There are very few, if any, merchants who could say that


they had been without coal for so long that they could not carry out this regulation. Obviously, one of the problems that faces the merchant is that he may have the coal, he may have some stock, but his delivery staff may be away with influenza, he may have a shortage of staff or his transport may have broken down.
It happens frequently that coal is at the depot, but the merchant is unable to get it from the depot to the consumer.

Brigadier Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that I, with other hon. Members wrote him a letter pointing out that the system had broken down and that the merchants could not get coal? We said that it was not a matter of going to the depot or not having transport. What the Minister is now reading is all theory—"You can have it in seven days; you can have it if you are sick." The point is that the coal was not there so they could not have it.

Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does talk foolishly in this House from time to time. One would have imagined that sensible people would be taking part in this debate.

Brigadier Clarke: All the hon. Gentleman does is to put the blame on the coal merchant.

Mr. Robens: One would imagine from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that there was no coal for the domestic consumer.

Brigadier Clarke: It was not there.

Mr. Robens: In the last calendar year, 1,600,000 tons more coal was supplied to the domestic consumer than in 1949.

Mr. H. A. Price: I am sorry that I missed something which the hon. Gentleman said. He said that an emergency certificate could be issued upon which the merchant had to deliver within 48 hours. After that he said something about seven days. I did not catch that because my attention was distracted. Would he repeat it?

Mr. Robens: The reference to seven days was when there was a shortage of fuel but no undue hardship. In other words, someone may be ill but the amount of fuel which they have would last for a few days. The merchant knows

that he must deliver the required amount of coal, and he is allowed seven days in which to deliver it.

Mr. Powell: I take it that there is nothing to ensure that the certificate for extra coal, which is the second type to which the Minister referred, is in fact met with extra coal and not merely by bringing forward part of the allocation?

Mr. Robens: I have explained that if it is a certificate for urgent delivery, it does not mean that extra coal will be supplied. If it is a licence, then it is for extra coal. Assuming that there was illness in a house and the people got certificates merely to expedite the delivery of their permitted quantity, they would come to a point when they had no coal. Then they would get a licence for extra coal.

Mr. Powell: But that overlooks the difficulty. I appreciate that it means that over a period of three or four months they may get their allocation plus "x," but it does not mean that in fact week by week over the period of the illness they will get twice as much coal into the household.

Mr. Robens: Yes, it does, if the delivery is expedited. If it is not expedited then the householder should see his coal merchant. If the delivery is expedited, their maximum permitted quantity will be reached much more quickly, in which case licences can be granted for an extra quantity, and they would, in fact, be getting coal as and when required. Until the permitted maximum has been reached, there is no point in giving them extra coal. If the hon. Gentleman will look at that in HANSARD, I think he will get the sense of it.

Mr. H. A. Price: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way again. He has referred to a document which has been distributed to the coal merchants. Is it possible for hon. Members to get copies, and, if so, where?

Mr. Robens: If hon. Members would like to see it, I see no reason why it should not be distributed. It does not belong to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, but I am perfectly certain that the director-general of the house coal distribution scheme—this is really the merchants' scheme—would be very glad to


let hon. Members see it if they wish. I shall contact the director-general to see if I can get a sufficient number of copies, in which case they can be sent to all hon. Members without application.
That brings me to my last point, I was saying that there are many cases in which the merchant has, in fact, got the coal, but cannot get it to the consumer because of his own problems of transport, and they really are difficult problems.

Brigadier Clarke: Nationalisation.

Mr. Robens: I can think of nothing more tragic or pathetic than a lot of old people sitting by fireless grates, cold and miserable, or people who are ill in cold rooms. It is important that all of us who are associated either with our constituents who need the coal or with the administration of this scheme should so operate the scheme as to distribute the coal that is available. I have made the point that this does not create any more coal for the domestic market, but we should make sure that what is available is so distributed that we take care of these cases. That is absolutely right.
I would add that, without wishing to stop hon. Members writing to me about particular cases, if their political agents in their constituencies or they themselves have got cases of this kind, if they will contact the local fuel overseer without delay, they will save much time and will get satisfaction for their constituents quicker than if they write to me and I have to get in touch with the division.

Mr. Alport: Reference was made to a scheme to encourage people who cannot afford to stock up during the summer to be able to do so, and I should like to know whether it might not be done by a system of vouchers for cheap coal.

Mr. Robens: The only scheme I know of is that which is run by the merchants themselves, who have what they call coal clubs. The Co-operative movement has a similar coal club, and probably that is the kind of thing which the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is referring to a suggestion which I made that the hon. Gentleman should approach the Minister of National Insurance on the question

whether the Assistance Board could not work out a scheme on these lines.

Mr. Robens: Why should we add to the bureaucracy and add to the administrative work and cause needless expense? If, in fact, the merchants are prepared to run these clubs, as many of them do, I think they will be encouraged to do so, though we do not want to be involved with any Governmental control.

Mr. Nabarro: I raised an interesting theoretical point about the total number of consumers multiplied by the maximum permitted allocations. Can the hon. Gentleman respond to that?

Mr. Robens: I am afraid I am not able to answer the actual point made by the hon. Member, but the fact is that, having got the global quantity, in this case about 31 million tons, the merchants supply coal below a line running from Oxford to the Wash at the rate of 34 cwts., and above that line 50 cwts. I will get the figures for the hon. Gentleman, and let him have them.

Mr. Nabarro: Thank you very much.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The remaining Orders were read, and deferred.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

TUBERCULOSIS (SWISS TREATMENT)

10.2 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I wished very much to take part in the last debate, but I had to restrain myself because I was extremely anxious to raise this important matter relating to beds for tuberculosis patients in Switzerland, and I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for having come at such short notice to answer the points that I want to raise.
Last July, I put down a Question, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton), to the Minister of Health asking him whether, in view of a decision recently taken at that time to accommodate tuber-


culosis patients in general hospitals, he would introduce legislation to enable him to subsidise tuberculosis patients recommended by local authorities for treatment in Switzerland. The hon. Member for Inverness asked the same Question, and also whether the Minister would take steps to provide funds to enable tuberculosis patients in the lower income groups to undertake sanatoria treatment in Switzerland, as is at present done by Holland and as was done by our own local authorities prior to 1939.
The Minister said in reply that he could not undertake in present circumstances to add to the cost of the National Health Service as proposed, but that he had recommended to hospital authorities action for making the best use of our own resources. At that point the matter dropped, and we heard nothing further about it until the early part of this year. When I say that we heard nothing further about it, I mean that the matter was not further pursued in Parliament. Of course, even at that period, there were a certain number of people going to Switzerland for treatment after having obtained the necessary permission from the Treasury regarding currency.
But I think the matter really did not come to a head until Sir Stafford Cripps went to Switzerland for a considerable period—and we are delighted to know his health is improving while he is there. It then transpired that a committee had been sitting, through the operations of the Ministry of Health, to which anyone who had been recommended for treatment in Switzerland was able to apply for the additional currency necessary for the carrying out of treatment. If I remember rightly, the figures given were that there had been nearly 300 persons who had applied for this special permission, and practically all the applications had been met and agreement had been reached with the Treasury.
As I said, nothing more happened in the House of Commons. The question was not pursued, except that people in the country who were desperately interested in obtaining as many facilities as they could for the treatment of tuberculosis began to raise with the Minister the question of the sanatorium at Montana in Switzerland. In January of this year, when the House resumed, a Question was put by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), to the

Secretary of State for Scotland in these terms:
… if he can now report on arrangements made for securing places in Swiss sanatoria for Scottish tubercular patients."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 20.]
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replied that she was satisfied with the report of the investigations which had been carried out in Switzerland, apparently on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that the matter was under discussion with her Department and with the Treasury to obtain the finances necessary to subsidise patients to go to Switzerland. When pressed in a supplementary question, the hon. Lady asserted that what the Scottish Office had in mind was the provision of some 300 beds.
At that point I asked whether the same provision was to apply to England. I could not quite make out whether some controversy had developed between the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whether the Secretary of State for Scotland had been somewhat alarmed at the curt dismissal by the Minister of Health of the wishes of those interested in the treatment of tuberculosis and had stolen a march on the Minister of Health. The whole situation seemed to be entirely wrapped in mystery, because it was quite "out of the blue" that this new approach to the problem appeared before the House. At that point, therefore, I intervened and asked whether similar arrangements were in operation for those who were looked after by the Minister of Health. I was very glad to receive the assurance that, in fact, similar steps were being taken, though it was a little difficult to get the information from the Minister on a subsequent Question which I addressed to him.
No Minister was very forthcoming on this matter, nor were we able to elicit any information as to whether these proposals of 300 beds for Scotland, with no figure given for England at all, were linked with the pressure exercised from all parts of the House about the provision of the sanatorium at Montana. The whole matter again went into oblivion and, as far as I am aware, we have not yet heard from the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the proposals have really proceeded.
I am bound to say that we were all delighted to know that at any rate the


edict of the Minister of Health given so emphatically to the House last July was no longer valid. I am not at all certain whether the situation was altered because the Minister of Health went to another Department and a new Minister of Health was appointed, but, at any rate, everyone who is interested in finding every possible facility for the treatment of tuberculosis was very glad indeed to know that the two Ministers were in consultation with the Swiss authorities to try to work out a scheme. I presume, although it has not been said in specific terms, that when reference was made to conversations which were going on with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the idea was that we should revert to the old pre-war scheme which gave power to the local authorities to subsidise patients who had been recommended specifically for Swiss treatment.
One recognises that we have the best medical advice and attention in this country, and I am quite certain that the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are addressing themselves to this great problem of shortage of beds and of staff for looking after tuberculosis patients; but there is no doubt that in certain circumstances treatment in Switzerland is of very great benefit to certain classes of patients, and I am sure it would be the wish of everybody in all quarters of the House that if such treatment is regarded as necessary for restoring a patient to health, we should not like the power of the purse to rule, and if certain doctors are recommended to people in the lower income groups they should also be able to obtain the benefits of treatment in Switzerland.
I therefore raise this question tonight in the hope of being able to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary two things: first of all, how far the negotiations have got; and secondly, providing that proper arrangements can be made with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is proposed to revert to the old system which was in operation before the outbreak of war, and whether it is the intention of the Minister to see that where treatment in Switzerland is essential, all sections of the community shall be able to benefit from that mountain air. I should be very glad also if the hon. Gentleman could give me an assurance that England and Scotland will be treated on an equal basis. I shall not take up the time of the House

any further, but I should be glad to know what the position is.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I intervene for a few minutes to support the plea which has been made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward). I had the opportunity very recently of studying some of the work of the English sanatorium in Montana. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the English sanatorium there is a first-class establishment. It is directed by an Australian doctor who has had great success; but unfortunately, unless something is done, it will close, and he will return to his native country, I believe, in April. I understand it is the only English sanatorium in that part of Switzerland.
On the whole, the patients have been drawn from people who could afford to pay the fees and could afford to do so in Swiss currency, but I should have thought it would have been possible for the Minister of Health to get into contact with his opposite number in the Swiss Government and to discuss with him some reciprocity arrangement under the National Health scheme. Indeed, I would not rule out of all consideration the possibility that the Swiss authorities might have been able to make some arrangement with us in sterling rather than to permit this sanatorium to close, this distinguished doctor to return to Australia and his staff, as I understand it, to be disbanded. I hope that the plea of the hon. Lady will not be in vain and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that something specific will be done in this matter in the near future.

10.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward), for raising this subject tonight, even though the debate has started rather later than we might originally have expected or hoped. It is important that it should be understood that there is no desire on the part either of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to prevent facilities from being made available, if they would be of real value to the patients concerned. It is our anxiety to try to ensure that the maximum amount


of accommodation is made available for patients under the very best medical care that we can provide.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: rose—

Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to continue a little longer he may find something which he wishes to discuss with me, and he might then like to interrupt.
There is no contradiction at all between the attitude taken by Scotland in this matter and that taken by ourselves. We have been jointly examining the position, we are jointly considering what is the best thing to do and we are having joint consultations with the Treasury. It would be quite wrong to imagine that there is any difference of opinion between us.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think there is a certain obscurity in what the Parliamentary Secretary said. The hon. Gentleman said that he and his right hon. Friend are determined to make all possible accommodation available. Does that mean available within the National Health Scheme or does it mean available in any circumstances, because if private patients can be taken to Switzerland that may make beds available within the National Health Service in this country.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is, of course, true that now that there has been a further release of foreign exchange, private persons can go rather more freely to Switzerland than was possible a little time ago. I do not deny that that is the position. What I meant was that we must make a clear differentiation between the number of beds which may be available in Switzerland, in the sense that they are empty, and the number of beds which we could conscientiously say it is in other respects desirable we should use. We must have in view the amount of medical care which would be available for patients in Switzerland and also, of course, the whole social arrangement which exists there.
We have to think of the nursing and medical care which is available in many of the sanatoria where beds are empty, and which hon. Members will realise is on rather a different basis in this country, so far as the treatment of tuberculosis is concerned, from that in Switzerland. We

have also to think of the general social surroundings, to ensure that not only would patients secure proper medical care but that there would be a reasonable chance of their being happy and at ease in the conditions they would meet in Switzerland.
First and foremost, we have to consider the availability of medical care to carry on the treatment which has been started in this country—started not necessarily in hospitals but before the patients have entered hospitals or sanatoria in this country. When we consider these matters, we find that the number of beds of which we could make use in Switzerland is, in fact, very small indeed in relation to the problem.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland referred to a figure of some 300 beds which, after investigation by a Scottish party that went over to Switzerland, it was thought might be made available. We have had our own team of both lay and medical experts over in Switzerland, and it seems that, though there may be some extra beds, it is still hard to say whether there would be any more than that 300 mentioned. If it became practicable to work this scheme, the beds would naturally be made available for patients throughout Great Britain.

Miss Ward: That would be the total covering both countries?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes. I was just saying that we think that there might be something more than 300 as a total; but there is certainly no prospect in any conditions that we can conceivably accept on medical grounds of anything in the nature of the 1,000 or more beds that have been talked about in the House. Therefore, the contribution that this can make to our problem is inevitably very small indeed, and we must face that fact.
We must also, it seems to me, face the problem of the expense involved, not because we are not desirous of making the very best contribution that we can to patients and to those who are on our waiting list, but because we have to think whether, if we are going to involve ourselves in what is really a heavy expenditure for a relatively small number of patients, we should not do more with that available sum of money in this country; and I think the truth would be that we


undoubtedly could. That is a matter that we are considering at this present time. It is not, as I say, a matter of our desiring to stand in the way of making extra beds available for our people, but we do not want anyone to be misled by the idea that we are really going to find here some solution of our waiting list problem. I am afraid we cannot hope to do that.
It is also our view that the medical care available in Switzerland, with the exception of a very small number of individual cases, is certainly not better than that in this country, and the problem is, therefore, essentially one of trying to ensure as rapidly as we can the solution to our problem of the waiting list, if possible within our own country. That would be so still even if we were to find ourselves able to accept offers which still have not been put in any very final form, although we have been in discussion and negotiation with all the authorities concerned. In Switzerland they are closely linked, I may say, with the tourist organisations, because very many of these sanatoria in Switzerland are like very delightful and luxurious hotels and do not bear very much relation, perhaps, to what we think of as our ordinary sanatoria provisions in this country, in terms of the amount of nursing staff and so on that one would normally expect to find and, of course, the sanitoria where the standards are probably the highest are the sanitoria that have little or no contribution to make to us because their beds are, broadly speaking, already filled.

Mr. Granville: Montana Hall?

Mr. Blenkinsop: The information I have is that the Australian doctor, who is a very fine doctor indeed, who has been in charge of this sanatorium, will, in any case, be leaving. It is no question at all of whether we could manage to save this sanatorium or not. In any case, he will be leaving, and it would be a problem to decide whether in all the circumstances the medical provisions and the other provisions there would then be what we would require. I ask hon. Members to realise that we would have to take the responsibility for ensuring the proper treatment and care of the cases a very long way from us, and it would be extremely difficult to achieve that control,

both of transport to Switzerland and also of the care in Switzerland. It is something that I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House not to press on us too quickly without the most careful consideration of all the very real difficulties involved, for the sake of the patients themselves as well as everybody else.

Mr. F. Longden: It is not a matter of costs?

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is not really a matter of costs, except in the sense I have already mentioned. We would regret being, as it were, forced by the House to spend a very large sum of money which could benefit only relatively very few of those on the waiting list when the same sum of money could do more benefit if we could use it in this country. It is entirely a matter of balance That is the point I ask hon. Members to keep clearly in mind.
The hon. Lady was not quite accurate when she said the question of T.B. beds in Switzerland had not been raised in the House apart from Questions being asked in July last year, and again in January and February of this year. We had two very valuable Adjournment debates on the treatment of tuberculosis generally, one raised by a Member of the Opposition and one by one of my hon. Friends, and the question of the use of beds in Switzerland was then also discussed and we made our position on the matter clear.

Mr. Granville: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly the position with regard to individual patients and the possibility of their getting currency to go there if they want to?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have seen the general announcement, which I expect the hon. Gentleman has seen, that in view of the present currency situation the Treasury are making currency more freely available than it was a little while ago. The information is available to everyone in the country.
Before finishing I do want to make clear that we have secured a very striking increase in the number of beds available in this country during the last couple of years, and particularly during the last six months. The figure has been given on previous occasions. In point of fact,


there have been some 3,500 extra beds for tuberculosis since the schemes of the Health Service came into operation.

Miss Ward: In general hospitals.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No, not all. Very many in sanatoria, and of course very many in consequence of our desire to open up other hospitals, especially for tuberculosis purposes. I am glad to be able to say there is every likelihood that we shall be able to have a further 2,000 beds, if not more, this year by the cooperation of both the general hospitals and the teaching hospitals, under careful supervision, and we can be assured that the treatment in those newly opened beds will be of the very best. We are having the full co-operation and help, for which we are very grateful, of all the specialist teams from the teaching hospitals, and I feel that in that way we shall be able to

do what we are so anxious to do—to get the full use of the early diagnosis of tuberculosis, which we are achieving now, to ensure a very much more rapid treatment of those cases we are now detecting under our mass radiography scheme.
I feel sure the House will be satisfied with the knowledge that, while we are still prepared very carefully to consider, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the possibility of making use of this limited number of beds—we are not ruling it out by any means—we realise that the major contribution must still be made in this country, and we are determined to make full use of it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.